Sweetflag (Acorus calamus)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Acorus calamus L.
Common name(s):	common sweet flag, sweetflag

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Grows in moist soils in wet open areas and shallow ditches, river edges, ponds (Plants for a future, 2004), marshes, swales and along the edges of quiet water (Flora of North America, 1999). It is a competitive invader of eutrophic habitats (Weber and Brandle, 2008) and is frost hardy up to -15°C (Brickell, 1996) and flood tolerant (Bucher and Kuhleimeir 1993).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
Pasture irrigation; water

Ecological Vegetation Divisions
Swampy scrub; freshwater wetland (permanent); treed swampy wetland; riparian; high altitude wetland; freshwater wetland (ephemeral)

Colours indicate possibility of Acorus calamus infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

map showing the potential distribution of the mediterranian dasiy

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Grows to 1.75cm along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). May restrict human access to wetlands and water ways due to its abundant growth in these environments.	ml	m
2. Reduce tourism?	A competitive invader in eutrophic sites (Weber and Brandle, 1996) that grows to 1.75cm along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). This could have an impact on the aesthetics of river banks and wet lands as this species can monopolise certain environments.	ml	m
3. Injurious to people?	May cause cancer, skin irritation and stomach upsets (Stone and Film 1997).	mh	m
4. Damage to cultural sites?	Grows to 1.75cm along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). Unlikely to have a significant effect on cultural sites.	l	m
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Grows in low flow environments (Flora of North America, 2008), however, dense populations may reduce flow and increase retention of sediment and other material.	mh	mh
6. Impact water quality?	Is deciduous, and becomes completely submersed over winter (Joly and Brandle, 1995), suggesting a die back of emergent foliage. In dense populations, there may be a significant input of biomass, at least at a microhabitat scale.	mh	mh
7. Increase soil erosion?	No evidence, however, would be assumed that there maybe a low probability of increased soil movement.	l	l
8. Reduce biomass?	No evidence.	l	l
9. Change fire regime?	Is an aquatic plant (Brickell, 1996). Therefore, assumed to have little impact on fire regime. No evidence.	l	ml
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC = Riparian shrubland (E); CMA = East Gippsland; Bioregion = Gippsland Plain; H CLIMATE potential An aquatic plant (Brickell, 1996), may impact negatively on species of similar growth form in its depth range, as well as floating and submerged water plants. May affect the depth to which light can penetrate the water. Within a H climate match environment the species is likely to have next to optimum growing conditions and is likely cause a major displacment existing dominant species within the strata the species exists and also in other stratums.	mh	m
(b) medium value EVC	EVC = Riparian Scrub/Swampy Riparian Woodland (D); CMA = Corangamite; Bioregion = Otway Plain; H CLIMATE potential An aquatic plant (Brickell, 1996), may impact negatively on species of similar growth form in its depth range, as well as floating and submerged water plants. May affect the depth to which light can penetrate the water. Within a H climate match environment the species is likely to have next to optimum growing conditions and is likely cause a major displacment existing dominant species within the strata the species exists and also in other stratums.	mh	m
(c) low value EVC	EVC = Riparian scrub (LC); CMA = Wimmera; Bioregion = Greater Grampians; M CLIMATE potential An aquatic plant (Brickell, 1996), may impact negatively on species of similar growth form in its depth range, as well as floating and submerged water plants. May affect the depth to which light can penetrate the water. Within moderately favourable conditions the species is likely to cause minor displacement of some dominant species due to reduced growth.	ml	m
11. Impact on structure?	An aquatic plant (Brickell, 1996), may impact negatively on species of similar growth form in its depth range, as well as floating and submerged water plants. May affect the depth to which light can penetrate the water.	mh	ml
12. Effect on threatened flora?	Fresh root can be poisonous (Plants for a Future, 2004). An essential oil derived from the rhizome has been shown to be a successful chemosterilant in the control of beetles (Raja et al., 2001).	ml	ml
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Fresh root can be poisonous (Plants for a Future, 2004). An essential oil derived from the rhizome has been shown to be a successful chemosterilant in the control of beetles (Raja et al., 2001).	ml	ml
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Fresh root can be poisonous (Plants for a Future, 2004). An essential oil derived from the rhizome has been shown to be a successful chemosterilant in the control of beetles (Raja et al., 2001).	ml	ml
15. Benefits fauna?	May provide harbour from predators, or hunting grounds for predators. However, no evidence.	ml	l
16. Injurious to fauna?	Fresh root can be poisonous (Plants for a Future, 2004). An essential oil derived from the rhizome has been shown to be a successful chemosterilant in the control of beetles (Raja et al., 2001).	ml	ml
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Fresh root can be poisonous (Plants for a Future, 2004). There is no evidence of the species as a food source for pest species.	ml	l
18. Provides harbor?	May provide harbour for invertebrates, aquatic and amphibious species. However, no evidence of this.	ml	l
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Grows to 1.75cm along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). May affect access to irrigation water or water for stock but no evidence found.	m	l
20. Impact quality?	Grows along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). Unlikely to impact on agriculture beyond its potential to reduce the availability of irrigation or stock water.	l	m
21. Affect land value?	Grows along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). Unlikely to impact on agriculture beyond its potential to reduce the availability of irrigation or stock water.	l	m
22. Change land use?	Grows along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). Unlikely to impact on agriculture beyond its potential to reduce the availability of irrigation or stock water.	l	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Grows along the “edges of quiet water” (Flora of North America 2008). Unlikely to impact on agriculture beyond its potential to reduce the availability of irrigation or stock water.	l	m
24. Disease host/vector?	No evidence	m	l

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Rhizomes propagate easily (Flora of North America, 1999). Rhizomes need to be submerged for their lifetime (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993), and therefore require water (Schluter and Crawford, 2001). Seeds require a rest period before germination can occur (Buell, 1938), however, fruits are not produced in European (Buell, 1935) and North American populations (Flora of North America, 1999). Requires adequate water.	mh	mh
2. Establishment requirements?	Rhizomes need to be submerged for their lifetime (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993), and therefore require water (Schluter and Crawford, 2001). Seeds need moist soil for germination to occur (Speichert and Speichert, 2004). Does not grow best in shade (Plants for a Future, 2004). Requires specific factors for establishment.	ml	mh
3. How much disturbance is required?	Grows in moist soils and shallow water in ditches, river edges and in ponds (Plants for a Future, 2004). Grows in wet, open areas, marshes, swales and along the edges of quiet water (Flora of North America, 1999). A competitive invader in eutropic habitat (Weber and Brandle, 2008). Establishes in relatively intact ecosystems.	mh	mh
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Monocotyledonous wetland plant (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993).Deciduous aquatic perennial (Brickell, 1996). 1.5 m long (Brickell, 1996). Amphibious (Bucher et al., 1995). Grows In the littoral zone of European wetlands (Weber and Brandle, 1996).	h	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	Some of the plant’s compounds showed potent anti-germination activity (Nawamaki and Kuroyanagi, 1996). Extracts of this species were shown to inhibit germination of lettuce seeds (Nawamaki and Kuroyanagi, 1996). Allelopathic properties at least affecting some plants.	mh	mh
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	An essential oil derived from this species rhizome has been shown to inhibit cell activity and has the potential to be used as an insect chemosterilant (Saxena et al., 1977). Oil vapours have been shown to satisfactorily control beetle adults and their egg laying (Raja et al., 2001). A. calamus could potentially be used for the control of beetles in egg and adult stages (Rahman and Schmidt, 1999). It is assumed that these studies were undertaken on herbivore species that may use A. calamus as a source of food, demonstrating a chemical mechanism to deter herbivory, however no further information was found.	m	l
7. Normal growth rate?	Vigorous growth with the advent of spring (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993). A competitive invader at eutrophic sites (Weber and Brandle, 1996).	mh	h
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Grows best in water that is no deeper than 22 cm (Brickell, 1996). Frost hardy, withstanding temperatures as low as -15 degrees C (Brickell, 1996). Flood tolerant (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993). In its natural life cycle is exposed to periods of flooding and consequently hypoxic conditions (Bucher et al. 1995). In laboratory conditions, can survive up to two months in the complete absence of oxygen (Bucher et al., 1995). Has high tolerance to anoxia in both shoots/leaves (Schluter and Crawford, 2001) and roots (Crawford and Braendle, 1996). High nitrogen (N= 18.5 mM) treatment had a negative affect on growth (Vojtiscaronkova et al., 2004), suggesting low tolerance to heightened levels of nitrogen in the soil. Rhizomes need to be submerged for their lifetime (Bucher and Kuhlemeier, 1993), and therefore require water (Schluter and Crawford, 2001). Very high tolerance of waterlogging and frost. Not tolerant of drought. Tolerance of salinity and fire unknown.	mh	h
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Flowers are hermaphroditic, and insect pollinated (Plants for a future, 2004) reproduces sexually (Buell, 1953) and by division of the rhizome (Muhlberg, 1980). European populations are sterile, and can reproduce by rhizome division only (Muhlberg, 1980). Fruits are produce freely in Minnesota, where it is likely native (Buell, 1935).	h	h
10. Number of propagules produced?	Reproduces sexually (Buell, 1953) and by division of the rhizome (Muhlberg, 1980). Berries produce 1-9, mostly 5-7 seeds (Buell, 1935). Shoot growth occurs in Spring (Weber and Brandle, 1996). Not enough information.	m	l
11. Propagule longevity?	Seed emergence has been observed at 60 per cent whether after 3 weeks, or 3 months, or sown dry (Speichert and Speichert, 2004). Some dormancy may occur but not enough information found.	m	l
12. Reproductive period?	No information. Reproduces by way of rhizome division (Muhlberg, 1980).	m	l
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	No information. Reproduces by way of rhizome division (Muhlberg, 1980).	m	l
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Roots of this, and two other species, were found to be the main food of the Snow Goose in China (Zang & Lu 1999). Fruit is a berry, but often is not formed (Spencer, 1974). Garden escape initially (Muhlberg, 1980). Seeds, if produced, may disperse along water ways. May also be dispered by birds, but not enough information was found.	m	l
15. How far do they disperse?	With limited information on dispersal agents, and given this species grows in slow moving or still bodies of water, dispersal is assumed to be of a short distance. In the event of a flood, shoots or seeds may be dispersed further.	m	L

References

Brickell C (1996) The Royal Horticultural Society A-Z. Encyclopaedia of Garden Plants. Dorling Kindersley, London.

Bucher M and Kuhlemeier C (1993) Long-term anoxia tolerance. Multi-level regulation of gene expression in the amphibious plant Acorus calamus L. Plant Physiology 103 (2), 441–448.

Bucher M, Brändle R, and Kuhlemeier C (1996) Glycolytic gene expression in amphibious Acorus calamus L. under natural conditions. Journal Plant and Soil 178 (1), 75-82.

Buell MF (1935) Seed and Seedling of Acorus calamus. Botanical Gazette 96 (4), 758-765

Buell MF (1938) Embryogeny of Acorus calamus. Botanical Gazette 99 (3), 556-568.

Crawford RMMM and Braendle R (1996) Oxygen deprivation stress in a changing environment. Journal of Experimental Botany 47 (2), 145-159.

Flora of North America (2008) Flora of North America, Available at www.efloras.org, (verified 29/4/2008).

Joly CA and Brandle R (1995) Fermentation and Adenylate Metabolism of Hedychium coronarium J. G. Koenig (Zingiberaceae) and Acorus calamus L. (Araceae) under Hypoxia and Anoxia. Functional Ecology 9 (3), 505-510.

Muhlberg H (1980) Complete Guide to Water Plants. E. P. Publishing Ltd. New York.

Nawamaki K and Kuroyanagi M (1996) Sesquiterpenoids from Acorus calamus as germination inhibitors. Phytochemistry 43 (6), 1175-1182.

Plants for a Future (2008) Edible, Medicinal and Useful Plants for a Healthier World. Available at http://pfaf.org/ (verified 29/4/2008).

Rahman MM and Schmidt GH (1999) Effect of Acorus calamus (L.) (Araceae) essential oil vapours from various origins on Callosobruchus phaseoli (Gyllenhal) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 35 (3) 285-295.

Rajaa N, Alberta S, Ignacimuthu S and Dornb S (2001) Effect of plant volatile oils in protecting stored cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpers against Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) infestation. Journal of Stored Products Research 37 (2), 127-132.

Saxena BP, Koul OK and Atal CK (1977) A new insect chemosterilant isolated from Acorus calamus L. Nature 270, 512 – 513.

Schlüter U and Crawford RMM (2001) Long-term anoxia tolerance in leaves of Acorus calamusL. and Iris pseudacorus L. Journal of Experimental Botany 52 (364), 2213-2225.

Speichert CG and Speichert S (2004) Encyclopedia of water garden plants¸ Timber Press, UK.

Spencer ER (1974) All about weeds, Scribner, New York.

Stone E and Film AK ‘Know your plants…Safe or poisonous?’ University of California, Davis, Available at http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/ce/king/PoisPlant/ (verified 29/04/2008).

Vojtíková L, Munzarová E, Votrubová O, ihová A and Juicová B (2004) Growth and biomass allocation of sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.) under different nutrient conditions. Hydrobiologia 518 (1-3), 9-22.

Weber M and Brandle R (1994) Dynamics of nitrogen-rich compounds in roots, rhizomes, and leaves of the sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.) at its natural site. Flora 189 (1), 63-68.

Zhang J and Lu J (1999) Feeding ecology of two wintering geese species at Poyang Lake, China. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 14 (4), 439-446.

Global present distribution data references

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) (2008) Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, Available at http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/ (verified 11 April 2008).

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2006) Flora information system [CD-ROM], Biodiversity and Natural Resources Section, Viridans Pty Ltd, Bentleigh.

EIS: Environmental Information System (2006) Parks Victoria.

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2008) Global biodiversity information facility, Available at http://www.gbif.org/ (verified 14 April 2008).

IPMS: Integrated Pest Management System (2006) Department of Primary Industries.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top