- Agricultural Invaders
- Aquatic Animals
- Aquatic Plants
- Pathogens & Parasites
- Terrestrial Animals
- Terrestrial Plants
Search our Education Materials Library for more: Library Links Factsheets
Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum L., (Fig. 1) is a submersed aquatic plant has become a major aquatic invader across much of North America. Plants are rooted at the lake bottom and grow rapidly creating dense beds and canopies (Fig. 2). Milfoil typically grows in water 1 to 4 meters (3.2 to 13 feet) deep, but has been found in water as deep as 10 m (32.8 ft). Stem densities can exceed 300/m2 (359/yd2) in shallow water. Conventional control efforts such as mechanical harvesting have been unsuccessful in providing more than short-term relief. The use of herbicides have been found to suppress regrowth for six weeks to a year but have considerable negative effects on non-target organisms (e.g., mortality of native macrophytes, fish kills, increased algal growth, contamination of public water supplies). Mechanical harvesting can result in short term localized population reductions but these methods are labor intensive and costly; continued relief must be supported by long-term mechanical intervention. Further, since harvesting inevitably results in the release of milfoil fragments, the harvesting process itself may be responsible for spreading the plant to uninfested areas.
Ecologic damage. Introduction of Eurasian watermilfoil can result in native macrophyte diversity and abundance declines. Eurasian watermilfoil beds form dense canopies at the water surface thereby reducing light penetration early in the season before native macrophytes have reached their full growth, shading them out and slowing/reducing growth potential. Eurasian watermilfoil beds, as a result of the reduction in native plants, have been found to contain significantly fewer macroinvertebrates (including benthic invertebrates) and a concomitantly lower abundance of native fish species. Milfoil-infested lakes tend to have reduced fish spawning areas and lowered fish growth rates. Native waterfowl in the Great Lakes have been found to avoid foraging for food in beds of Eurasian watermilfoil.
Economic damage. The negative impacts on wildlife and fish populations in waterbodies with high densities of Eurasian watermilfoil and the difficulty of motorboating and swimming in infested areas result in recreation-oriented financial losses and the depreciation of shoreline property values (accompanied by a loss of real estate taxes to local economies). It is estimated that milfoil control efforts have cost the United States millions of dollars per year nationwide. Annual control costs in New York state easily exceed half a million dollars per year.
Eurasian watermilfoil belongs to the watermilfoil family, Haloragaceae, which has two genera in the eastern United States, Myriophyllum L. (10 species, the watermilfoils) and Proserpinaca L. (two species, the so-called 'mermaid-weeds). All species are submersed herbs inhabiting quiet waters or rooted on muddy shores; all.have many finely divided leaves. The species are very similar, resulting in difficulty in identification using only individual specimens or ones without flowers. This has lead to a debate about whether reports of infestations prior to 1940 are actually misidentifications of native species. Myriophyllum spicatum is variable in appearance with long stems, and 12 to 21 leaflet pairs which are limp when out of water. Native M. sibiricum has five to 10 leaflet pairs which remain rigid when out of the water. Flowers are arranged on emersed spikes which bear whorls of female flowers basally and whorls of male flowers apically. Female flowers produce four small (2 to 3 mm, 0.08 to 0.16 inch) nutlike fruits .
Eurasian watermilfoil inhabits ponds and lakes that vary from deep (greater than 100 m, 328 feet) to very shallow (less than a meter, or yard). Waters inhabited may be stagnant, slow moving fresh, or even slightly brackish. Plants overwinter rooted in the sediment and grow rapidly once favorable warm temperatures are reached in the spring. Because the species tolerates lower water temperatures than most native plants it begins to photosynthesize and grow earlier in the spring than natives, giving the plant the ability to reach the water surface before native plants. The dense canopy over developing native vegetation allows milfoil to out-compete natives for sunlight and space Flowering typically takes place in early summer and can continue for several months. Although Eurasian watermilfoil produces seed, fragmentation is believed to be the most likely mode of spread in North America. Under unfavorable conditions (high boating traffic, grazing by herbivores or parasites), milfoil may not reach the water surface and won't flower. M. spicatum has been found to hybridize with native M. sibiricum (producing M. sibricum X spicatum) with an intermediate number of leaf segments. The hybrid plant tends to be more aggressive than the invasive parent species.
Myriophyllum spicatum is native to Europe, Asia, and North Africa. It appears to have been accidentally introduced into North America sometime in the period between the late-1800s and 1940. From the initial points of introduction in the Northeast, M. spicatum has spread to 45 states and at least three Canadian provinces. It has now become a major nuisance species throughout most of the northern US. It is listed as a noxious or otherwise restricted plant in 17 states (in NYS Eurasian watermilfoil is classified as "prohibited"). Milfoil can be spread throughout a waterbody as fragments tangled on boats and trailers or in currents. Furthermore, motor boating and mechanical weed harvesting produce and distribute stem fragments allowing increased propagation. Long distance overland dispersal may be related to the aquarium and aquatic nursery trades.
Figure 3. 2015 U.S. distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil (Map: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, plants.usda.gov)
Figure 4. New York distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil, September 2015. Yellow squares are approximated locations; red dots are accurate locations. (Map: imapinvasives.org/nyimi/)
An important aspect of milfoil control is to minimize its spread. Because milfoil is spread overland mostly by human intervention (particularly as a hitchhiker on recreational boats, harvesters, and work barges/boats, it is critical to remove all plant fragments and rinse all equipment that has been in infested waters. The equipment should then be allowed to dry completely before being used in another body of water.
Mechanical harvesting of milfoil is used widely used throughout the Northeast and Midwest. Small populations of milfoil around docks, in swimming areas, or near water intakes can be carefully hand-pulled raked. The best results are found when using multiple harvests per growing season. Care should be taken to prevent breaking off fragments that can float away to start new populations elsewhere. Such localized control can also be undertaken by covering the bed of the waterbody with opaque fabric, thus blocking the light that the plants need to grow.
For use in large areas infested by milfoil, the use of large mechanical harvesters is an option. As in the case of hand-pulling, care should be taken to prevent the movement of fragments to uninfested areas; equipment should be thoroughly cleaned before being moved to other waterbodies. Harvested plant matter can be burned, buried, composted, or by disposed of in landfills.
Eurasian watermilfoil can be killed by dehydration. On managed waterbodies, manipulation of water levels through drawdowns exposing standing biomass and root crown to several weeks of drying time (especially during sub-freezing temperatures).
Mechanical harvester for Eurasian watermilfoil control. Photo: Pelots Bay Association
A number of chemicals impact the growth and survival of M. spicatum. Amine salts of Endothall (Hyrothol 191®), and Dipotassium Salts of Endothall (Aquathol K®), Diquat dibromide (Reward®), Komeen® have been found to be effective, as have. Some of these herbicides may also affect other non-target rooted submerged plants, including some rushes. Treatment is most effective in still water in the spring while the plant is actively growing.
The amine formulations of 2,4-D granules (Navigate®, Aquakleen®, Aquacide®) are effective on controlling Eurasian watermilfoil and will not damage most non-target grasses. This herbicide method, however, is not appropriate for large unmanageable areas of milfoil.
One lose-dose application (10 µg/ L) of fluridone (brand names Sonar® and Avast!®) applied in the early stages of growth has the potential to provide season long control of milfoil. However, this application rate cause collateral damage to native vegetation.
Liquid triclopyr (Renovate 3® and Renovate® OTF) can control milfoil without unintended damage to cattails and grasses.
Note: Always check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions. Mention of chemicals, particularly the mention of brand names in this profile does not represent a recommendation by NY Sea Grant or Cornell University.
Since the early-1960s, the grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella has been used to reduce the abundance of invasive and nuisance aquatic plants, including Eurasian watermilfoil, in North America.
Since the early-1960s, the grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella has been used to reduce the abundance of invasive and nuisance aquatic plants, including Eurasian watermilfoil, in North America. Unfortunately, in many cases grass carp may only eat Eurasian watermilfoil after native plants have been consumed. Effective control of milfoil therefore means the total removal of native aquatic species the fish find more palatable before the grass carp will consume the targeted Eurasian watermilfoil. This may be acceptable if milfoil is the only aquatic plant species in the lake, but due to the substantial negative impacts on native vegetation, grass carp are generally not recommended for control of Eurasian watermilfoil.
For decades, research has evaluated potential insect and pathogen agents for the biological control of Eurasian watermilfoil. Several species of insects have been identified feeding on Eurasian watermilfoil to a damaging degree in North America. Some of these are species to North America while others may have been introduced accidentally from Europe along with introductions of M. spicatum.
The fungus Mycoleptodiscus terrestris has been shown in laboratory research to reduce the biomass of Eurasian watermilfoil significantly and may serve as a possible biocontrol agent.
The North American herbivorous weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontie, may be associated with recent natural declines in Eurasian milfoil abundance in some lakes in North America. E. lecontei feeds on new growth M. spicatum and may help keep populations under control without concomitant impact on native species. The native midge Cricoptopus myriophylli (Oliver) are also contenders for this recorded damage to milfoil beds.
As many as 20 species of insects appear to feed on M. spicatum on other continents but do not exhibit the host specificity that would be required to make them candidates for milfoil biocontrol.
Among insect species being studied are the North America native weevil Litodactylus leucogaster (Marsham), which attacks the emersed flower spikes of various milfoil species (including non-target species), and the aquatic midge Cricotopus myriophylli (native from New York to British Columbia). While being implicated in the field for contributing to milfoil reduction in BC, the midge does not appear to contribute significantly to declines in lab experiments.
A promising candidate is the naturalized pyralid moth Acentria ephemerella. A. ephemerella is a generalist herbivore which feeds on a variety of aquatic plants. Field evidence indicates it has been associated with declines in Eurasian watermilfoil populations in Ontario, Canada, and in New York. In laboratory and in controlled in lake-enclosure experiments, A. ephemerella reduced biomass and plant height and prevented canopy formation.
The North American herbivorous weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontie. (Photo: Robert L. Johnson, Cornell University, Bugwood.org)
The naturalized pyralid moth Acentria ephemerella (Photo: Robert L. Johnson, Cornell University, Bugwood.org)
R. L. Johnson - Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, B. Blossey - Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. In: Van Driesche, R., et al., 2002, Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States, USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04, 413 p.
Aiken, S. G., P. R. Newroth, and I. Wile. 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds. 34. Myriophyllum
spicatum L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59: 201-215.
Batra, S. W. 1977. Bionomics of the aquatic moth, Acentropus niveus (Oliver), a potential biological
control agent for Eurasian watermilfoil and hydrilla. New York Entomological Society 85: 143-152.
Benedict, Jr., R. J. and G. R. Hepp. 2000. Wintering waterbird use of two aquatic plant habitats in a
southern reservoir. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 269-278.
Berg, K. 1942. Contributions to the biology of the aquatic moth Acentropus niveus (Oliver). Vidensk
Medd Dansk Naturh Foren 105: 59-139.
Boylen, C. W., L. W. Eichler, and J. W. Sutherland. 1996. Physical control of Eurasian watermilfoil in
an oligotrophic lake. Hydrobiologia 340: 213-218.
Buckingham, G. R. and B. M. Ross. 1981. Notes on the biology and host specificity of Acentria nivea
(=Acentropus niveus). Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 19: 32-36.
Buckingham, G. R. and C. A. Bennett. 1981. Laboratory biology and behavior of Litodactylus
leucogaster, a Ceutorynchine weevil that feeds on watermilfoils. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 74: 451-458.
Buckingham, G. R., C. A. Bennett, and B. M. Ross. 1981. Investigations of two insect species for
control of Eurasian watermilfoil. Final Technical Report A-81-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
Cofrancesco, Jr., A. F. 1998. Overview and future direction of biological control technology. Journal of
Aquatic Plant Management 36: 49-53.
Couch, R. W. and E. N. Nelson. 1985. Myriophyllum spicatum in North America, pp 8-18. In
Anderson, L. W. J. (ed.). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) and related Haloragaceae species. The Aquatic Plant Management
Society, Washington, D. C.
Crawley, M. J. 1989. The successes and failures of weed biocontrol using insects. Biocontrol News
and Information 10: 213-223.
Creed, R. P. 1998. A biogeographic perspective on Eurasian watermilfoil declines: additional evidence
for the role of herbivorous weevils in promoting declines. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management
Creed, R. P. 2000. Is there a new keystone species in North American lakes and rivers? Oikos 91:
Creed, R. P. and S. P. Sheldon. 1993. The effect of feeding by a North American weevil,
Euhrychiopsis lecontei, on Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Aquatic Botany 45:
Creed, R. P. and S. P. Sheldon. 1995. Weevils and watermilfoil: Did a North American herbivore
cause the decline of an exotic plant? Ecological Applications 5: 1113-1121.
Creed, R. P., S. P. Sheldon, and D. M. Cheek. 1992. The effect of herbivore feeding on the buoyancy
of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 30: 75-76.
Denno, R. F., M. S. McClure, and J. M. Ott. 1995. Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects:
competition reexamined and resurrected. Annual Review of Entomology 40: 297-331.
Furnier, G. R. and M. M. Mustaphi. 1992. Isozyme variation in Minnesota populations of Eurasian
watermilfoil. Aquatic Botany 43: 305-309.
Gerber, D. T. and D. H. Les. 1994. Comparison of leaf morphology among submersed species of
Myriophyllum (Haloragaceae) from different habitats and geographic distributions. American
Journal of Botany 81: 973-979.
Gleason, H. A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States
and Adjacent Canada, 2nd Edition. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY. 910 pp.
Gross, E. M., R. L. Johnson, and N. G. Hairston, Jr. 2001. Experimental evidence for changes in
submersed macrophyte species composition caused by the herbivore Acentria ephemerella
(Lepidoptera). Oecologia 127: 105-114.
Hairston, Jr., N. G. and R. L. Johnson. 2001. Monitoring and evaluating the impacts of herbivorous
insects on Eurasian watermilfoil. Report to New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Harris, P. 1981. Stress as a strategy in the biological control of weeds, pp. 333-340. In Papavizas,
G. C. (ed). Biological Control in Crop Production. Allanhead, Osman and Company, Totowa,
New Jersey, USA.
Hartleb, C. F., J. D. Madsen, and C. W. Boylen. 1993. Environmental factors affecting seed
germination in Myriophyllum spicatum L. Aquatic Botany 45: 15-25.
Jester, L. L., M. A. Bozek, S. S. Sheldon, and D. R. Helsel. 1997. New records for Euhrychiopsis
lecontei (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and their densities in Wisconsin lakes. Great Lakes
Entomologist 30: 167-176.
Johnson, R. L., E. M. Gross, and N. G. Hairston Jr. 1998. Decline of the invasive submersed
macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum (Haloragaceae) associated with herbivory by larvae of
Acentria ephemerella (Lepidoptera). Aquatic Ecology 31: 273-282.
Johnson, R. L., P. J. Van Dusen, J. A. Toner, and N. G. Hairston, Jr. 2000. Eurasian watermilfoil
biomass associated with insect herbivores in New York. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 38:
Julien, M. H. and M.W. Griffiths. 1998. Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and
Their Target Weeds, 4th Edition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Keast, A. 1984. The introduced aquatic macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum as habitat for fish and
their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62: 1289-1303.
Knapton, R. W. and K. Pauls. 1994. Fall food habits of American widgeon at Long Point, Lake Erie,
Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 20: 271-276.
Lawton, J. H. 1990. Biological control of plants: A review of generalizations, rules, and principles
using insects as agents, pp. 3-17. In Bassett, C., L. J. Whitehouse, and J. A. Zabkiewicz (eds.).
Proceedings of an International Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand. FRI Bulletin 155, Ministry of
MacRae, I. V., N. N. Winchester, and R.A. Ring. 1990. Feeding activity and host preference of the
milfoil midge, Cricopterus myriophylli Oliver (Diptera: Chironomidae). Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management 28: 89-92.
Madsen, J. D., J. W. Sutherland, and C. W. Bloomfield. 1991. The decline of native vegetation under
dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29: 94-99.
Malecki, R.A., B. Blossey, S. D. Hight, D. Schroeder, L. T. Kok, and J. R. Coulson. 1993. Biological
control of purple loosestrife. Bioscience 43: 480-486.
Masters, G.J., V. K. Brown, and A. C. Gange. 1993. Plant mediated interactions between above- and
below ground insect herbivores. Oikos 66: 148-151.
Mazzei, K. C., R. M. Newman, A. Loos, and D. W. Ragsdale. 1999. Development rates of the native
milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, and damage to Eurasian watermilfoil at constant
temperatures. Biological Control 16: 139-143.
McKnight, S. K. and G. R. Hepp. 1995. Potential effects of grass carp herbivory on waterfowl foods.
Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 720-727.
McKnight, S. K. and G. R. Hepp. 1998. Diet selectivity of gadwalls wintering in Alabama. Journal of
Wildlife Management 62: 1533-1543.
Muenscher, W. C. 1944. Aquatic Plants of the United States. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New
Newman, R. M. and D. D. Biesboer. 2001. A decline of Eurasian watermilfoil in Minnesota associated
with the milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 38: 105-111.
Newman, R. M., K. L. Holmberg, D. D. Biesboer, and B. G. Penner. 1996. Effects of the potential
biological control agent, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, on Eurasian watermilfoil in experimental tanks.
Aquatic Botany 53: 131-150.
Newman, R. M., D. C. Thompson, and D. B. Richman. 1998. Conservation strategies for the
biological control of weeds, pp. 371-396. In Barbosa, P. (ed.) Conservation Biological Control.
Academic Press, New York.
Newman, R. M., M. E. Borman, and S. W. Castro. 1997. Developmental performance of the weevil
Euhrychiopsis lecontei on native and exotic watermilfoil host plants. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 16: 627-634.
Nichols, S. A. and B. H. Shaw. 1986. Ecological life histories of three aquatic nuisance plants
Myriophyllum spicatum, Potamogeton crispus, and Elodea canadensis. Hydrobiologia 131: 3-21.
Nichols, S. A. and S. Mori. 1971. The littoral macrophyte vegetation of Lake Wingra. Wisconsin
Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 59: 107-119.
Painter, D. S. and K. J. McCabe. 1988. Investigation into the disappearance of Eurasian watermilfoil
from the Kawartha Lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 26: 3-12.
Pine, R. T. and L. W. J. Anderson. 1991. Plant preferences of triploid grass carp. Journal of Aquatic
Plant Management 29: 80-82.
Reed, C. F. 1977. History and distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil in the United States and Canada.
Phytologia 36: 417-436.
Shearer, J. F. 1994. Potential role of plant pathogens in declines of submersed macrophytes. Lake
Reservoir Management 10: 9-12.
Sheldon, S. P. 1997. Investigations on the potential use of an aquatic weevil to control Eurasian
watermilfoil. Lake Reservoir Management 13: 79-88.
Sheldon, S. P. and L. M. O'Bryan. 1996. Life History of the weevil Euhrychiopsis lecontei, a potential
biological control agent of Eurasian watermilfoil. Entomological News 107:16-22.
Sheldon, S. P. and R. P. Creed. 1995. Use of a native insect as a biological control for an introduced
weed. Ecological Applications 5: 1122-1132.
Sheppard, A. C. 1945. A new record for Canada (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomologist 77: 55.
Smith, C. S. and J. W. Barko. 1990. Ecology of Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant
Management 28: 55-64.
Smith, C. S., S. J. Slade, J. H. Andrews, and R. F. Harris. 1989. Pathogenicity of the fungus,
Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. to Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.).
Aquatic Botany 33: 1-12.
Solarz, S. L. and R. M. Newman. 1996. Oviposition specificity and behavior of the watermilfoil
specialist Euhrychiopsis lecontei. Oecologia 106: 337-344.
Solarz, S. L. and R. M. Newman. 2001. Variation in host plant preference and performance by the
milfoil weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei Dietz, exposed to native and exotic watermilfoils. Oecologia
Spencer, N. R. and M. Lekic. 1974. Prospects for biological control of Eurasian watermilfoil. Weed
Science 22: 401-404.
Sutter, T. J. and R. M. Newman. 1997. Is predation by sunfish (Lepomi spp.) an8 important source of
mortality for the Eurasian watermilfoil biocontrol agent Euhrychiopsis lecontei? Journal of
Freshwater Ecology 12: 225-234.
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the
United States. OTA-F-565. Washington, D.C.
Valley, R. D. and R. M. Newman. 1998. Competitive interactions between Eurasian watermilfoil and
northern watermilfoil in experimental tanks. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 36: 121-126.
White, D. J., E. Haber, and C. Keddy. 1993. Invasive Plants of Natural Habitats in Canada. Canadian
Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.