D. geminata is made up of cells that cannot be seen with the naked eye until large colonies form. It only needs a single cell to be transported for the algae to spread (Biosecurity NZ, 2005). These cells are distinguished by their large, triundulate frustule, shaped like a curved bottle, and prominent striae (regular lines of holes starting at the centre line of the valve faces) which are radially arranged and variable in length at the centre (Kilroy, 2004).
D. geminata can be distinguished from other species of algae on the basis of: Colour D. geminata is beige/brown/white but not green. Touch Although it looks slimy it doesn't feel slimy, but rather spongy and scratchy like cotton wool. Odour Live D. geminata has no distinctive odour. Strength D. geminata is strongly attached to river stones and does not fall apart when rubbed between your fingers (Biosecurity NZ, 2005).
There appears to be some confusion as to the number of species contained within the genus Didymosphenia, with various species other than Didymosphenia geminata being identified in the literature.
D. dentata was recorded from Lake Baikal and is described as having a valve exterior with occluded areolae, prominent marginal spines, dilated proximal raphe ends and distal ends that are deflected at 90 degree angles in the same direction. Ridges or flanges spiral around each spine. Stigmata are lacking. Internally the central nodule, raphe sternum and helictoglossae are prominent. D. dentata is said to differ from D. geminata in valve shape, presence of marginal spines and lack of stigmata. Recent suggestions that the two species are conspecific are not supported by observations presented in Kociolek et al (2000).
Metzeltin and Lange-Bertalot (1995), in their taxonomic evaluation of Didymosphenia identified three morphotypes of D. geminata: geminata sensu stricto, capitata and subcapitata. They also recognised another four species: D. siberica (Grun.) M. Schmidt, D. curvata (Skv. and Meyer), D. clavaherculis (Ehr.) and D. pumila nov. spec. These can be differentiated by the structure of the areolae, which is profoundly different in D. geminata and D. clavaherculis compared to D. siberica, D. curvata and D. pumila.
\r\nStable flow and a stable substrate are probably required for the initial attachment to the substrate. Most Didymo blooms reported occur in lake-fed rivers or in regulated rivers (below dams), ie., in freshwater systems characterized by relatively stable flows. Once a colony is established, fast currents are likely to enhance growth by promoting transfer of nutrients to the cells at the mat surface (Kilroy, 2004). An important habitat requirement for D. geminata is high light levels (Kawecka and Sanecki, 2003; in Kilroy, 2004). In British Columbia, D. geminata was found in depths from 10cm to 2m, with the heaviest biomass occurring in high-light areas (Kilroy, 2004). Detailed analysis of the blooms suggested that the distribution of Didymosphenia blooms may also be related to geological factors and temperature (Sherbot and Bothwell, 1993; in Kilroy, 2004).
Principal source: Kilroy, C. November 2004. A new alien diatom, Didymosphenia geminata (Lyngbye) Schmidt: its biology, distribution, effects and potential risks for New Zealand fresh waters.
Compiler: IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) with support from the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) Programme (Copyright statement)
Review: Mads Solgaard Thomsen, Post doc, Benthic Section, Marine Department, National Environmental Research Institute University of Aarhus, Roskilde, Denmark.
Publication date: 2010-06-08
Recommended citation: Global Invasive Species Database (2024) Species profile: Didymosphenia geminata. Downloaded from http://iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=775 on 27-11-2024.
Kilroy (2004) assesses the impacts of the spread of D. geminata in New Zealand. Some of the impacts include: an effect on the tourism industry, significant aesthetic effects, alteration in invertebrate communities, minor health effects and the possibility of spread to other rivers.
For more details follow this link Kilroy, 2004
Concerns raised by the Environment Protection Division of the Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia of possible impacts of D. geminata blooms include reduction in the rearing habitat for salmonid species, alterations in the species composition and poplulations of invertebrates, restriction of water flow and depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water due to decomposition of algal mats (EPD, undated).
Potential impacts of the spread of D. geminata discussed by the MDDEP-MRNF report include a possible alteration of the species composition of benthic invertebrate communities which could affect fish populations; alteration in streamflow and an effect on recreational activities (MDDEP-MRNF, 2007).
An electric fishing survey was carried out by the Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune (MRNF), in the Matapedia river in Quebec, in early September 2006. Large D. geminata blooms had been observed in the river. The MRNF was not able to measure impacts on the abundance of juvenile salmons. The MDDEP-MRNF (2007) states that a similar observation had been made by fisheries experts and managers from France, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Finland and Norway. No impacts had been recorded on either adults or juveniles of Atlantic salmon or any other salmonid species.
1. Before leaving the river, remove obvious clumps of algae, taking care to search for hidden clumps which may be obscured within compartments. Leave clumps at affected site. After leaving affected area, if you find clumps, do not wash clumps down drains. Treat them chemically or by drying as below.
2. Soak and scrub all items for at least one minute in hot (60°C) water, a 2 percent solution of household bleach or a 5 percent solution of salt, nappy cleaner, antiseptic hand cleaner or dishwashing detergent.
Note: For a 2 percent solution, add 200 mls to a ten litre bucket and fill with water. For a 5 percent solution, add 500 mls (two heavy cups) to a ten litre bucket and fill with water.
If cleaning using the approved chemical methods in step two is not feasible, alternatively the infected equipment must be COMPLETELY dry for at least two days before it can be safely used in unaffected waters. Equipment that remains damp or could have pockets of trapped moisture after use will require longer drying times because the 48 hour drying time begins after dampness and trapped moisture have evaporated. Some equipment may never reach complete dryness depending upon how and where it is stored (shoes, waders, life vests, wetsuits, spray skirts, jet boat intakes, tyres, etc.) and therefore should always be chemically treated.
Under no circumstances should fish, plants or other items be moved from an affected waterway to an unaffected waterway.