Lizard Tail (Saururus cernuus)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Saururus cernuus L.
Common name(s):	Lizard Tail

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Lizard tail is an attached emergent aquatic species which prefers shallow water but can persist on wet soil (Hall 1940). It has been reported in habitats such as marshes, swamp forests, riparian vegetation, open and vernal ponds, found in freshwater to slightly brackish it can even form floating mats from cut vegetation (Batcher 2002; Boyd & Walley 1972; Flora of North America; Hall 1940).

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:

Broad vegetation types
Swamp scrub; sedge rich woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; Aquatic areas including; Riparian Strip, 10m Rivers, 5m Creeks; Irrigation Canals, 3m Major, 2m Minor; Wetlands excluding permanently saline and saltworks.

Colours indicate possibility of Saururus cernuus 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 lizard tail

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

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Herb to around 1m that does grow along waterways and reported to have the potential to cause an allergic reaction (Boyd & Walley 1972; Dave’s Garden 2007). Therefore it may pose some inconvenience to individuals.	ml	mh
2. Reduce tourism?	Is an ornamental species and may have some impact on the aesthetics of a riparian area.	ml	l
3. Injurious to people?	The pollen is reported to have the potential to cause an allergic reaction (Dave’s Garden 2007)	ml	ml
4. Damage to cultural sites?	There is no evidence of this however as it is an ornamental species it may have some impact upon aesthetics.	ml	l
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	As an attached emergent aquatic species S.cernuus could impact on both subsurface and surface flow. It is however only reported to occur in shallow water in association with slower moving or still water (Batcher 2002; Boyd & Walley 1972; Hall 1940; Thien et al 1994).	mh	mh
6. Impact water quality?	No specific evidence on it impact upon water quality.	m	l
7. Increase soil erosion?	Having an extensive root system and occurring in water of reduced flow, there would be a low probability of large scale soil movement as a result of invasion by S.cernuus (Batcher 2002; Boyd & Walley 1972; Hall 1940; Thien et al 1994).	l	mh
8. Reduce biomass?	In its native range it has been reported to have a combined root shoot biomass of between 445g and 2250g dry wt/m²(Boyd & Walley 1972). It is not known however if it will have a similar production capacity under Australian conditions. As a herb however it is unlikely to significantly increase biomass especially for the purposes of carbon sequestration and it has not been described as having a significant impact on the other flora strata particularly regeneration of tree species. Therefore invasion by S. cernuus is likely to cause a direct replacement of biomass.	ml	m
9. Change fire regime?	The species occurs in wet environments and is not described as being effected by fire.	l	m
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC=Floodplain Riparian Woodland (V); CMA=North East; Bioreg=Victorian Riverina; L CLIMATE potential. Can for pure stands and therefore displace all species within a layer (Hall 1940; Thien et al 1994). It is unknown however if the plant would still be capable of this with a low climate match.	m	mh
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Riparian Forest (D); CMA=North East; Bioreg=Victorian Riverina; L CLIMATE potential. Can for pure stands and therefore displace all species within a layer (Hall 1940; Thien et al 1994). It is unknown however if the plant would still be capable of this with a low climate match.	m	mh
(c) low value EVC	There are no low value EVCs mapped within the potential distribution of S. cernuus that are likely to be impacted on by this species.	l	m
11. Impact on structure?	Can form pure stands within one layer not reported to have significant impact upon other strata (Hall 1940; Thien et al 1994).	mh	mh
12. Effect on threatened flora?	No evidence of this in its natural habitat it is considered threatened	mh	l
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	No evidence of this	mh	l
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Unknown	m	l
15. Benefits fauna?	Insects reported to visit its flowers and feed on it to some extent and it may provide some habitat for insects and birds etc however this is not specifically documented (Boyd & Walley 1972; Hall 1940; Kubanek et al 2000; Zuwerink & Gates 2000).	mh	mh
16. Injurious to fauna?	Reported to contain chemicals which will deter some species form consuming it not known if it does harm species which do consume of come into contact with it (Batcher 2002; Kubanek et al 2000). Therefore it could have the potential to do harm, but there is no evidence supporting that it has.	m	l
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Not reported to be eaten by any species in significant quantities.	l	m
18. Provides harbor?	Can provide shelter for mosquitoes (Hall 1940).	ml	mh
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture. As an emergent aquatic it could potentially have some impact upon rice crops.	m	l
20. Impact quality?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture. As an emergent aquatic it could potentially have some impact upon rice crops.	m	l
21. Affect land value?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture.	l	m
22. Change land use?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture.	l	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture. May pose some interference in irrigation systems.	m	l
24. Disease host/vector?	No evidence of it impacting agriculture.	l	m

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Germination under natural conditions is coincided rare however this may be due to the difficulty of distinguishing seedlings from other floating vegetation such as Lemna (Thien et al 1994). A 75% germination rate has been found to occur after between 17 and 94 days of being placed in water (Thien et al 1994). The optimum temperature for germination has been found to be 25ºC (Batcher 2002). Vegetative propagules can set root if they remain floating in water for a period of two weeks (Hall 1940). Therefore vegetative propagules are opportunistic and potentially so is seed germination however this is still an unknown.	h	mh
2. Establishment requirements?	Described as being a common species as part of the understorey of swamp forests of the Eastern United States (Hall 1940). Therefore it can establish under moderate shade conditions.	mh	mh
3. How much disturbance is required?	It natural habitat includes riparian margins and wetland habitats (Boyd & Walley 1972).	mh	h
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	An emergent aquatic (Hall 1940).	h	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	None described, does however contain chemicals not fully understood.	m	l
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Can be effected by insect herbivory with little impact to the plant (Boyd & Walley 1972). Contains chemicals that appear to deter herbivory (Batcher 2002). Contains chemicals which deter crayfish feeding on if (Kubanek et al 2000)	mh	mh
7. Normal growth rate?	Described to have very rapid growth through runners (Mühlberg 1982). Able to outcompete Persicaria hydropiperoides to the extent that it can become dominant and kill existing plants (Hall 1940). Can be outcompeted by Lythrum salicaria especially in areas of infrequent or no inundation (Batcher 2002) Therefore it is a fast growing species capable of exceeding the growth rate of some species of the same life form but may be outcompeted itself by others.	mh	mh
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Aquatic herb, can permenatly grow in shallow water and is tolerant of periodic inundation (Hall 1940). Can withstand frost, but not if the water becomes frozen (Speichert & Speichert 2004). Occurs in wet habitat not likely to be exposed to fire. Prefers freshwater, it has however described in somewhat brackish (Flora of North America 1997). Unknown tolerance of drought.	mh	mh
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Able to reproduce both vegetatively through the spreading runners and fragments of stem and root material and by producing seed. Seed germination is however reportedly rare and therefore vegetative spread (Batcher 2002)	h	mh
10. Number of propagules produced?	Average of 10 to 50 individuals found, 1 inflorescence per plant, with a maximum of 3, with an average of 272 fruits per inflorescence with a maximum of 350 and as the fruits contain 4 seeds an average seed production would be more than 1000 with the potential to be more than 3000 (Hall 1940).	h	h
11. Propagule longevity?	Seeds can be stored for up to seven years, the longevity of seeds under natural conditions however is unknown and the proportion of viable seeds remaining is likely to be low (Batcher 2002).	l	mh
12. Reproductive period?	Can form pure stands (Thien et al 1994). Therefore self with the species ability to vegetatively reproduce these populations could be described as self-sustaining monocultures.	h	h
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Time to reproductive maturity from seed or vegetatively is not specifically described. It has been described as being fast growing however and therefore probably not take long.	m	l
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Water is the only dispersal mechanism described (Hall 1940).	mh	h
15. How far do they disperse?	The majority of fruits have been reported to be able to float for around two hours with a small proportion able to float for up to three. Root and stem material has also been reported to float for more than two weeks by which stage the fragments have developed new roots (Hall 1940). Germinated seeds are also able to continue to grow while floating (Batcher 2002). Even in slow moving water the ability to remain afloat for hours to weeks would allow viable propagules to be dispersed more than one kilometre.	h	mh

References

Batcher M.S., 2002, Saururus cernuus L. Lizard’s Tail. Conservation and Research Plan for New England. viewed 30 Mar 2007 http://www.newfs.org/conserve/pdf/Saururuscernuus.pdf

Boyd C.E. & Walley W.W. 1972, Production and chemical composition of Saururus cernuus L. at sites of different fertility. Ecology. 53: 927-932

Dave’s Garden: Dave’s Garden “For Gardeners… By Gardeners”. viewed 30 Apr 2007, http://davesgarden.com/

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1997. Flora of North America. Vol 3. New York and Oxford.

Hall T.F., 1940, The Biology of Saururus cernuus L.. The American Midland Naturalist. 24: 253-260

Kubanek J. Fenical W., Hay M.E., Brown P.J. & Lindquist N., 2000, Two antifeedant lignans from the freshwater macrophyte Saururus cernuus. Phytochemistry. 54: 281-287.

Mühlberg H., 1982, The complete Guide to Water Plants. EP Publishing Limited

Speichert G. & Speichert S., 2004, Encyclopedia of Water Garden Plants. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon.

Thien L.B., Ellgaard E.G., Devall M.S., Ellgaard S.E. & Ramp P.F., 1994, Population structure and reproductive biology of Saururus cernuus L. (Saururaceae). Plant Species
Biology. 9: 47-55.

Zuwerink D.A. & Gates R.J., 2000, Avain use of planted versus unplanted wetland basins at Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. In: Mitsch , W.J., Zhang L., (Eds.), The
Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1999. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, pp. 143-145.

Global present distribution data references

Batcher M.S., 2002, Saururus cernuus L. Lizard’s Tail. Conservation and Research Plan for New England. viewed 30 Mar 2007 http://www.newfs.org/conserve/pdf/Saururuscernuus.pdf

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2007, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 30 Mar 2007, http://www.gbif.org/

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2007, w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 30 Mar 2007, http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

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