Open Access

Diversity of wetland plants used traditionally in China: a literature review

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine201410:72

https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-10-72

Received: 23 May 2014

Accepted: 22 September 2014

Published: 15 October 2014

Abstract

Background

In comparison with terrestrial plants, those growing in wetlands have been rarely studied ethnobotanically, including in China, yet people living in or near wetlands can accumulate much knowledge of the uses of local wetland plants. A characteristic of wetlands, cutting across climatic zones, is that many species are widely distributed, providing opportunities for studying general patterns of knowledge of the uses of plants across extensive areas, in the present case China. There is urgency in undertaking such studies, given the rapid rates of loss of traditional knowledge of wetland plants as is now occurring.

Methods

There have been very few studies specifically on the traditional knowledge of wetland plants in China. However, much information on such knowledge does exist, but dispersed through a wide body of literature that is not specifically ethnobotanical, such as regional Floras. We have undertaken an extensive study of such literature to determine which species of wetland plants have been used traditionally and the main factors influencing patterns shown by such knowledge. Quantitative techniques have been used to evaluate the relative usefulness of different types of wetland plants and regression analyses to determine the extent to which different quantitative indices give similar results.

Results

350 wetland plant species, belonging to 66 families and 187 genera, were found to have been used traditionally in China for a wide range of purposes. The top ten families used, in terms of numbers of species, were Poaceae, Polygonaceae, Cyperaceae, Lamiaceae, Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Potamogetonaceae, Fabaceae, and Brassicaceae, in total accounting for 58.6% of all species used. These families often dominate wetland vegetation in China. The three most widely used genera were Polygonum, Potamogeton and Cyperus. The main uses of wetlands plants, in terms of numbers of species, were for medicine, food, and forage. Three different ways of assigning an importance value to species (Relative Frequency of Citation RFC; Cultural Importance CI; Cultural Value Index CV) all gave similar results.

Conclusions

A diverse range of wetland plants, in terms of both taxonomic affiliation and type of use, have been used traditionally in China. Medicine, forage and food are the three most important categories of use, the plants providing basic resources used by local people in their everyday lives. Local availability is the main factor influencing which species are used. Quantitative indexes, especially Cultural Value Index, proved very useful for evaluating the usefulness of plants as recorded in the literature.

Keywords

Wetland plants Traditional knowledge Literature study China

Background

Traditional knowledge of plants has played an important role in people’s lives historically and has the potential to continue to contribute much in the future for the sustainable development of societies and economies [13]. However, as with biodiversity, traditional knowledge is becoming endangered with the danger of being total loss [4, 5]. There are many causes of such endangerment, including changes occurring in the environment [6], urbanization and economic globalization [7, 8]. Urbanization is one of the most important factors globally causing loss of traditional knowledge [7, 8].

In contrast with terrestrial ecosystems, wetlands have been poorly studied ethnobotanically, even though, for people living in and around wetlands, wild wetland plants play important roles in their daily lives [912]. Plants are collected from wetlands for a wide variety of purposes, such as provision of medicine, food and building materials and to sell for cash income [9, 11, 13]. Wetlands are very susceptible to loss or degradation through urbanization [1416], which can change their extent and species composition and lead to the loss of biodiversity [1719]. Traditional knowledge about wetlands is declining along with wetland degradation and alteration [11, 12], an inevitable trend given the accelerating rate of urbanization that is now occurring.

Wetlands are widely distributed throughout China, but especially common in the east and south [20], where there are particularly rich traditions of local knowledge about the uses of their plants. There has been little ethnobotanical research specifically on wetland plants, but much information on traditional uses of wetland plants nevertheless does exist, though scattered through regional floras and other types of publication. Like traditional ethnobotanical knowledge generally, that concerned with wetland plants is becoming [11]. Ethnobotanical research on people’s knowledge of wetland plants in China is urgently needed.

Currently, most ethnobotanical research concerned with any habitat type (not just wetlands) is conducted on the basis of case studies undertaken at specific field locations. The results of such studies are important for understanding relationships between local people and their environments, including sometimes for providing guidance on the sustainable use of plants and their conservation. However, case studies unavoidably emphasize unique local features of the relationships between people and their environments [21]. There is a role for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on wider regional to international scales to investigate general patterns of knowledge and use relating to plants, including to provide contexts for local-level studies [2125].

Quantitative methods have been successfully applied in ethnobotanical studies, especially in the evaluation of cultural value or importance of species [11, 24, 26]. However, most quantitative methods have been developed for the analysis of case studies based on field work. Which of these methods is most suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses remains little studied, with little published information available.

In this paper, we aim to answer the following questions through a study of the literature: 1. What are the botanical characteristics of wetland plants traditionally considered useful in China? 2. What are the main factors influencing the patterns of use of wetland plants in China? 3. Which of the available quantitative indexes is most suitable for evaluating traditional knowledge, as determined from the literature?

Methods

Data collection

Two criteria were used to identify the species included in this analysis. First, the species had to be wetland plants; we took the definition of a wetland as that given in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (1971). Second, the species had to have been recorded as having traditional use. In this paper, we only paid attention on vascular plants. There have been very few systematic ethnobotanical studies conducted on wetlands in China. Most of the available ethnobotanical information on wetland plants is scattered sporadically through various publications, such as national and provincial floras, economic floras, and papers published in scientific journals. Our approach has been to identify, so far as we were able, all sources of potential information on wetland plants and then to search through this literature to compile an ethnobotanical inventory of wetland plants. Then we used the scientific names of the plants as key words to search further information on traditional use in the China Science and Technology Journal Database. The total number of principal literature sources studied was 56 [2782].

Based on records in the literature, we classified uses into 11 groups: medicine, fodder, food, green manure, fiber, ornamental, liquor-making, environmental, industrial raw material, pesticide, and other. The medicine category includes plants used for treating animal as well as human diseases. Fodder refers to plants eaten by domestic animals. Edible plants are those as human food either in a raw or processed state. Green manure refers to plants employed as fertilizer. Fiber plants are those yielding fibers used by people; there are various ways in which they are extracted from the plants. Ornamental plants are those planted deliberately to beautify the environment. Liquor-making plants are those yielding either basic ingredients or supplementary materials used in making traditional liquor. The environmental category refers to plants used in soil conservation or the stabilization of dams. The industrial raw material category includes those plants providing raw materials for industrial production, such as for the manufacture of essential oils. Although not a typical traditional use, such plants can provide local people with sources of cash income and thus is important category of use for some people. The pesticide category refers to plants used for killing or driving away pests such as insects. Uses other than those in the above ten categories are grouped together in ‘other’.

Data analysis

Use Value (UV) is a widely used statistic employed by ethnobotanists to provide a measure of the relative usefulness of plants to people [24, 83]. In this paper, we use the formula UVi = ∑Ui/n to calculate the use value of each species (i), Ui referring to the number of categories of use mentioned for a species in a particular literature source and n the total number of literature sources mentioning the species [23, 24, 84]. For example, if two literature sources (n = 2) mention species i, with three use categories mentioned in the first source and one in the second, then UVi = (3 + 1)/2 = 2.

Family Use Value (FUV), a statistic developed by Phillips and Gentry [83], provides a measure of the relative usefulness of plant families. FUV for a particular family (j) is calculated using the formula FUVj = ∑(UVi)/n, where UVi is the use value of species i and n is the number of species in the family.

The statistic Relative Frequency of Citation (RFCi) is used as a measure of consensus between the information provided by different literature sources. RFC is similar conceptually to that of Utilization Frequency proposed by Ladio and Lozada [85]. RFC for a species is calculated as RFCi = FCi/N [24], where FCi is the number of literature sources mentioning species i and N the total number of literature sources consulted (N = 56 in the present case).

The cultural value (or importance value) of species in a given culture and the comparative importance of species interculturally are receiving growing attention in ethnobotanical studies, especially those concerned with medicinal plants [24, 25, 86, 87]. Here, measures of cultural value for wetland plant in China are provided by the statistics Cultural Importance Index (CI) and Cultural Value Index (CV), based on formulae given in Tardio & Pardo-de-Santayana and Reyes-Garcia et al. [24, 26].

Finally, regression analysis has been used to determine the relationships between RFC, CI and CV.

Results

Diversity of the useful wetland plants in China

A total of 350 wetland plant species (including 5 varieties), belonging to 66 families and 187 genera, were recorded as used in China according to the survey. The average number of species recorded per family was 5.3, with 15 families (22.7% of the total) having more species than the average (Table 1). The ten families (Poaceae, Polygonaceae, Cyperaceae, Lamiaceae, Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Potamogetonaceae, Fabaceae, and Brassicaceae) contributed 58.6% of all species, the 5 with the highest number of species being Poaceae (46 species; 13.1% of the total), Polygonaceae (9.1%), Cyperaceae (8.3%), Lamiaceae (5.7%), and Asteraceae (5.1%), Twenty-five families (37.9% of the total) were represented by only one useful species each. The remaining 33 families contributed between 2 and 11 species each (0.6-3.1% of the total).
Table 1

The taxonomic composition of wetland plants used traditionally and family use values (FUV) based on literature research

Family

No. of genus (%)

No. of Species (%)

FUV

Poaceae

27 (14.4)

46 (13.1)

1.59

Polygonaceae

3 (1.6)

32 (9.1)

1.57

Cyperaceae

6 (3.2)

29 (8.3)

1.34

Lamiaceae

14 (7.5)

20 (5.7)

1.25

Asteraceae

14 (7.5)

18 (5.1)

1.30

Ranunculaceae

6 (3.2)

14 (4.0)

1.10

Hydrocharitaceae

6 (3.2)

13 (3.7)

1.51

Potamogetonaceae

1 (0.5)

12 (3.4)

1.33

Fabaceae

11 (5.9)

11 (3.1)

1.97

Brassicaceae

4 (2.1)

10 (2.9)

1.81

Apiaceae

5 (2.7)

7 (2.0)

1.38

Araceae

5 (2.7)

7 (2.0)

1.19

Rosaceae

3 (1.6)

7 (2.0)

1.56

Scrophulariaceae

6 (3.2)

7 (2.0)

1.05

Alismataceae

3 (1.6)

6 (1.7)

1.29

Chenopodiaceae

3 (1.6)

5 (1.4)

1.86

Commelinaceae

2 (1.1)

5 (1.4)

1.24

Eriocaulaceae

1 (0.5)

5 (1.4)

1.00

Primulaceae

2 (1.1)

5 (1.4)

1.24

Typhaceae

2 (1.1)

5 (1.4)

1.84

Urticaceae

4 (2.1)

5 (1.4)

1.51

Equisetaceae

1 (0.5)

4 (1.1)

1.21

Lemnaceae

3 (1.6)

4 (1.1)

1.44

Lythraceae

3 (1.6)

4 (1.1)

1.13

Onagraceae

2 (1.1)

4 (1.1)

1.04

Pontederiaceae

2 (1.1)

4 (1.1)

1.83

Trapaceae

1 (0.5)

4 (1.1)

1.75

Acanthaceae

3 (1.6)

3 (0.9)

1.00

Caryophllaceae

3 (1.6)

3 (0.9)

1.33

Nymphaeaceae

3 (1.6)

3 (0.9)

2.71

Plantaginaceae

1 (0.5)

3 (0.9)

1.23

Acoraceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.28

Amaranthaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

2.82

Cannaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.42

Haloragaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.13

Lentibulariaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.00

Menyanthaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

2.06

Solanaceae

2 (1.1)

2 (0.6)

1.50

Valerianaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.00

Verbenaceae

2 (1.1)

2 (0.6)

1.00

Violaceae

1 (0.5)

2 (0.6)

1.00

Amaryllidaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.50

Apocynaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.67

Azollaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.22

Butomaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.50

Cabombaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Campanulaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Ceratophyllaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.71

Cucurbitaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

3.20

Euphorbiaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Gentianaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Geraniaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Iridaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.25

Juncaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.71

Marsileaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.71

Menispermaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Nelumbonaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.22

Papaveraceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Parkeriaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.33

Penthoraceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.33

Phytolaccaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

2.75

Plumbaginaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.00

Salviniaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.89

Saururaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.33

Saxifragaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.67

Schizaeaceae

1 (0.5)

1 (0.3)

1.50

The family names on the list are arranged in the order of the descending number of species.

Some taxa were obviously dominant at the generic level, 32 genera (17.1% of the total) being represented by 3 or more species. The top scorer was Polygonum (24 species), followed by: Potamogeton (12); Cyperus (10); Scirpus and Rumex (both 7); Ranunculus (6); Carex, Eriocaulon, Echinochloa, Cardamine, and Potentilla (all 5); Blyxa, Bromus, Eleocharis, Equisetum, Lysimachia, Najas, Paspalum, Stachys, Trapa, and Typha (all 4); and then Alisma, Arisaema, Clematis, Leersia, Ludwigia, Miscanthus, Monochoria, Murdannia, Oenanthe, Plantago, and Rorippa (all 3). The dominant genera belonged to the same families as scored highest at the family level, for example Polygonaceae, Cyperaceae, Potamogetonaceae, Poaceae, Hydrocharitaceae and Ranunculaceae.

Scores for Family Use Value (FUV) fell between 1 (for 14 families) and 3.2 (Cucurbitaceae) (Table 1). The top 10 families according to this measure (all with FUV >2.0) were completely different from those scoring highly according to number of species. There was no obvious correlation between FUV and number of species used per family. All top 10 families based on FUV were families with few wetland species (3 or fewer). However, there were also families having few species with low FUV scores.

Characteristics of traditional use of wetland plants

Medicine, fodder and food were the main uses made of wetland plants according to number of species (Table 2). Seventy percent of all species were recorded to be of medicinal use, nearly half of were employed as forage and somewhat fewer as food. Fewer plants were recorded as employed for green manure, fiber, or as sources of raw materials for industry, but all these were noticeably important types of use. The other five categories of use accounted for only a small proportion of total uses. Twenty-six species (7.4% of all species) provided insecticides and 22 species (6.3%) were employed in the making of liquor. Several plants were sold for cash, such as species of Polygonum, among others. The ‘Other’ category included some plants used for skin care, such as Coix lacryma-jobi and Zizania latifolia, and others in house construction, such as Arundo donax, Miscanthus sacchariflorus, and Phragmites australis. Although few species were included in the construction category, nevertheless wetland plants used in construction can be of major importance to local people.Different families made very different contribution to different use categories (Figure 1). Over half of the families contributed to the top three categories that were medicine (97% of families), food (62.1%) and forage (59.1%); about one-third contributed to each of green manure, ornamental, and industrial use. However, other categories of use were more obviously concentrated within certain families. For example, fewer than 20% of families contributed to fiber use, pesticides, liquor–making, or environmental use. Nearly half of species providing pesticides were in the Polygonaceae and 54.2% of those used for environmental protection (such as preventing soil erosion and stabilizing dams) in the Poaceae. Species of the Poaceae and Cyperaceae contributed greatly to the fiber group (63.5% of all species so used), while those in the Polygonaceae, Poaceae, and Trapaceae were well represented in liquor-making (54% of species used). Genera showed similar patterns to those shown by families. The results as a whole showed that the top three use categories of medicine, food and forage made use of a broader spectrum of plants taxonomically than other uses.
Table 2

Use categories of wetland plants and the numbers of related species

Type of use

No. of species

Percentage of the total (%)

Medicine

263

75.1

Forage

173

49.4

Food

101

28.9

Green manure

53

15.1

Fiber

52

14.9

Industrial raw material

48

13.7

Ornamental

32

9.1

Pesticide

26

7.4

Environmental use

24

6.9

Liquor –making material

22

6.3

Other

15

4.3

Figure 1

The percentage of relevant families and genera for each use category. EN = environmental use; PE = pesticide; OT = other; LI = liquor–making material; ID = industrial raw material; FI = fiber; OR = ornamental; GR = green manure; ED = food; FO = fodder; ME = medicine.

Some of the top families contributed greatly to some of the use categories (Table 3). The top ten families contributed about half of all species used medicinally, over 66% of those providing fodder (though lacking any contribution from Ranunculaceae) and nearly fifty percent of those used as food. Seven of the top ten families contributed 52.8% of species used as green manure. The top ten families together contributed 73% of species used for fiber, although actually only three (Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and Fabaceae) made substantial contributions. Similar patterns were apparent in the other use categories. Some top families, such as Lamiaceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Potamogetonaceae, and Brassicaceae, contributed only to certain of the major categories of use, for example Rancunculaceae (one of the top ten families) was only used for medicine, food and pesticide. Thus, families with large numbers of species used did not necessarily contribute to all categories of use.
Table 3

Contributions of the top 10 families (in terms of numbers of species) to different use categories

Family

ME (%)

FO (%)

ED (%)

GR (%)

FI (%)

ID (%)

OR (%)

PE (%)

EN (%)

LI (%)

OT (%)

Poaceae

14 (5.3)

42 (24.3)

7 (6.9)

2 (3.8)

18 (34.6)

2 (4.2)

4 (12.5)

0 (0.0)

13 (54.2)

4 (18.2)

6 (40.0)

Polygonaceae

32 (12.2)

11 (6.4)

11 (10.9)

1 (1.9)

0 (0.0)

14 (29.2)

1 (3.1)

12 (46.2)

1 (4.2)

5 (22.7)

1 (6.7)

Cyperaceae

17 (6.5)

19 (11.0)

3 (3.0)

1 (1.9)

15 (28.8)

1 (2.1)

2 (6.3)

0 (0.0)

2 (8.3)

2 (9.1)

0 (0.0)

Lamiaceae

20 (7.6)

2 (1.2)

5 (5.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4 (8.3)

0 (0.0)

1 (3.8)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Asteraceae

13 (4.9)

6 (3.5)

7 (6.9)

2 (3.8)

0 (0.0)

1 (2.1)

0 (0.0)

1 (3.8)

1 (4.2)

1 (4.5)

0 (0.0)

Ranunculaceae

13 (4.9)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

5 (19.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Hydrocharitaceae

3 (1.1)

12 (6.9)

3 (3.0)

7 (13.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (3.1)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Potamogetonaceae

5 (1.9)

10 (5.8)

1 (1.0)

7 (13.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Fabaceae

9 (3.4)

8 (4.6)

1 (1.0)

8 (15.1)

5 (9.6)

2 (4.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4 (16.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Brassicaceae

8 (3.0)

5 (2.9)

8 (7.9)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

5 (10.4)

1 (3.1)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Total

134 (51.0)

115 (66.5)

47 (46.5)

28 (52.8)

38 (73.0)

29 (60.4)

9 (28.1)

19 (73.1)

21 (87.5)

12 (54.5)

7 (46.7)

Note: ME = medicine; ED = food; FO = fodder; GR = green manure; OR = ornamental; ID = industrial raw material; FI = fiber; PE = pesticide; LI = liquor–making material; OT = other; EN = environmental use.

Use value of wetland plants

The Use Values (UV) of species are shown on Table 4. UV varies between 1.0 and 3.71, with ten species having UV ≥ 3.00. Phragmites australis, which was highest scoring (UV = 3.71), is one of the dominant species of wetland plant communities in China and distributed widely in many parts of the country. At least seven types of use for this species are mentioned frequently in the literature. Glycine soja was second in rank order (UV = 3.5), followed by Zizania latifolia and Rorippa islandica (both UV = 3.33), Actinostemma tenerum (UV = 3.2), Rumex acetosa (UV = 3.17) and Nymphaea tetragona (UV = 3.13). Among species with a UV value of 3.00, Euryale ferox was recorded in ten literature sources, Saccharum spontaneum in three and Oenanthe sinensis in one; all are plants with multiple uses. There were 165 species (about 47% of the total) with the lowest possible score (UV = 1.0). Among these, one hundred and thirty-nine species (84.2%) had only one type of use and twenty-two species (13.3%) had two.
Table 4

Ethnobotanical inventory and some quantitative indexes of useful wetland plants in China

Species

UV

RFC

CI

CV

Use

Reference(s)

Acorus calamus L.

1.55

0.20

0.30

0.03795

ED,ME,FI,FO,PE,OR,ID

[2729, 45, 46, 59, 63, 65, 68, 62, 67]

Acorus gramineus Aiton

1.00

0.11

0.11

0.00209

ED,ME

[27, 44, 46, 59, 63, 78]

Actinostemma tenerum Griff.

3.20

0.09

0.29

0.01160

ED,ME,FO,GR,ID

[2729, 58, 64]

Adenostemma lavenia (L.) Kuntze

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ED

[27, 29, 46, 58]

Aeginetia indica L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Aeschynomene indica L.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00157

ME,GR,FI

[29, 46, 58]

Ageratum conyzoides L.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00209

ME,FO,GR,EN

[28, 29, 46]

Ajuga ciliata Bunge

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Ajuga multiflora Bunge

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Alisma canaliculatum A. Braun & C. D. Bouché

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ME,OR

[29, 46]

Alisma gramineum Lej.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[64]

Alisma plantago-aquatica L.

1.13

0.14

0.16

0.00417

ME,OR

[2729, 45, 46, 59, 64, 65]

Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb.

2.83

0.11

0.30

0.01183

ME,GR,FO,EN

[2729, 46, 57, 58]

Alternanthera sessilis (L.) DC.

2.80

0.09

0.25

0.00812

ED,ME,FO,GR

[27, 29, 46, 58, 62]

Amethystea coerulea L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Ammannia baccifera L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ME,FO

[46, 62]

Amphicarpaea trisperma Baker

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Anemone hupehensis (Lemoine) Lemoine

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00087

ME,PE

[28, 29, 46]

Apium leptophyllum (Pers.) F. Muell.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Apocynum venetum L.

2.67

0.05

0.14

0.00278

ED,ME,FI,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Arisaema amurense Maxim.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[27, 28, 46, 59]

Arisaema du-bois-reymondiae Engl.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[29]

Arisaema heterophyllum Blume

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[69]

Artemisia capillaris Thunb.

2.20

0.09

0.20

0.00957

ED,ME,FO,LI,PE,ID

[2729, 58, 67]

Artemisia selengensis Turcz. ex Besser

1.60

0.09

0.14

0.00348

ED,ME,FO

[27, 29, 46, 65, 70]

Arthraxon hispidus (Thunb.) Makino

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00209

ME,FI,FO

[28, 46, 57, 67]

Arundinella anomala Steud.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00046

FI,FO

[28, 29]

Arundo donax L.

2.63

0.14

0.38

0.02922

ME,FI,FO,OR,EN,OT

[2729, 36, 37, 45, 46, 59]

Arundo donax var. versicolor (Mill.) Stokes

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

OR

[27, 38]

Astilbe chinensis Franch. & Sav.

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ME,OR,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Astragalus adsurgens Pall.

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ME,FO,EN

[28, 29, 46]

Atropanthe sinensis Pascher

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00087

ME,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Azolla imbricata (Roxb.) Nakai

2.22

0.16

0.36

0.02087

ME,FO,GR,PE

[2729, 31, 32, 46, 58, 59, 62]

Bacopa monnieri (L.) Wettst.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Beckmannia syzigachne (Steud.) Fernald

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ED,ME,FO

[28, 57, 68]

Berteroa incana DC.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ID

[28]

Bidens parviflora Willd.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Bidens tripartita L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Blyxa aubertii Rich.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Blyxa echinosperma (C. B. Clarke) Hook. f.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[27, 28]

Blyxa japonica Maxim. ex Asch. & Gürke

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Blyxa leiosperma Koidz.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[27]

Boehmeria gracilis C. H. Wright

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ME,FI,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Brasenia schreberi J. F. Gmel.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00052

ED,ME

[27, 29, 46]

Bromus catharticus Vahl

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[27, 29]

Bromus inermis Leyss.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00087

ED,FO,EN

[27, 28]

Bromus japonicus Thunb.

1.83

0.11

0.20

0.00957

ED,ME,FO,FI,LI

[27, 28, 45, 46, 57, 62]

Bromus remotiflorus (Steud.) Ohwi

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

FI,FO

[45, 57, 62]

Butomus umbellatus L.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FI,OR

[28, 64]

Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth

2.60

0.09

0.23

0.00754

FI,FO,OT,EN

[2729, 57, 67]

Calamagrostis pseudophragmites (Hall. f.) Koel.

2.00

0.07

0.14

0.00186

FO,EN

[2729, 57]

Caldesia reniformis Makino

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

OR

[29]

Caltha palustris L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00104

ED,ME,PE

[29, 68, 82]

Canna generalis L. H. Bailey

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FI,OR

[27, 29]

Canna indica L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00139

ED,ME,FI,FO

[27, 46, 62]

Capillipedium parviflorum (R. Br.) Stapf

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Cardamine flexuosa With.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 58]

Cardamine impatiens L.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00244

ED,ME,FO

[2729, 63]

Cardamine leucantha (Tausch) O. E. Schulz

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00116

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46, 70]

Cardamine lyrata Bunge

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00162

ED,ME

[2729, 46]

Cardamine macrophylla Willd.

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ED,ME,FO

[29, 81, 82]

Carex baccans Nees

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ED,ME

[28, 46]

Carex dispalata Boott

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FI,FO

[28, 67]

Carex leiorhyncha C. A. Mey.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[28, 67]

Carex scabrifolia Steud.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FI

[28, 29]

Carex tangiana Ohwi

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FO,OR

[28, 67]

Catabrosa aquatica P. Beauv.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Centaurium meyeri Druce

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Centipeda minima (L.) A. Braun & Asch.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 78]

Ceratophyllum demersum L.

1.71

0.13

0.21

0.00487

ME,FO

[2729, 46, 58, 63, 64]

Ceratopteris thalictroides (L.) Brongn.

1.33

0.11

0.14

0.00278

ED,ME

[2729, 46, 58, 63]

Chenopodium ambrosioides L.

2.20

0.09

0.20

0.00638

ME,ED,PE,ID

[2729, 46, 58]

Chenopodium serotinum L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ME,FO

[46, 62]

Cicuta virosa L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Clematis cadmia Buch.-Ham. ex Hook.f. & Thomson

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Clematis finetiana H. Lév. & Vaniot

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Clematis orientalis L.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Clinopodium chinense Kuntze

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Clinopodium gracile (Bentham) Matsumura

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Cnidium monnieri (L.) Cuss.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,FO

[28, 29, 46]

Coix lacryma-jobi L.

2.30

0.18

0.41

0.04000

ED,ME,FI,FO,LI,OT

[27, 41, 42, 45, 46, 59, 62, 63, 65, 71]

Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott

1.83

0.11

0.20

0.00574

ED,ME,FO

[27, 29, 46, 65, 59, 62]

Commelina benghalensis L.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00093

ME,OR

[2729, 46]

Commelina communis L.

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00261

ED,ME,FO

[2729, 46, 70]

Corydalis racemosa Pers.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 58]

Crotalaria assamica Benth.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00093

ME,FI,FO,GR

[28, 29]

Crypsis aculeata Aiton

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FO,EN

[28, 29]

Cyperus compressus L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[62, 67]

Cyperus difformis L.

1.00

0.11

0.11

0.00209

ME,FI

[28, 46, 6264, 67]

Cyperus exaltatus Retz.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00093

FI,FO

[28, 29, 62, 67]

Cyperus glomeratus L.

1.60

0.09

0.14

0.00464

ME,FO,FI,GR

[28, 46, 62, 64, 67]

Cyperus imbricatus Retz.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FI

[28, 29]

Cyperus iria L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00052

ME,FO

[46, 62, 67]

Cyperus michelianus (L.) Link

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[46]

Cyperus microiria Steud.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Cyperus pilosus Vahl

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00139

ME,FI,FO

[27, 45, 62, 63]

Cyperus pygmaeus Rottb.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Dichrocephala auriculata Druce

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Dichrocephala benthamii C. B. Clarke

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Dicliptera chinensis (L.) Juss.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Duchesnea indica (Andrews) Focke

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00261

ED,ME,PE

[28, 29, 46, 69, 78]

Echinochloa caudata Roshev.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.

2.40

0.09

0.21

0.01044

ED,ME,FI,FO,GR,LI

[28, 45, 46, 57, 62]

Echinochloa crus-galli var. mitis (Pursh) Peterm.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Echinochloa crus-galli var. zelayensis (Kunth) Hitchc.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Echinochloa crus-pavonis (Kunth) Schult.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms

2.67

0.11

0.29

0.01670

ED,ME,FO,OR,GR,EN

[2729, 46, 57, 62]

Eleocharis dulcis Trin. ex Henschel.

2.00

0.11

0.21

0.00626

ED,ME,FO

[27, 29, 43, 62, 65, 73]

Eleocharis plantagineiformis Tang & F. T. Wang

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Eleocharis valleculosa Ohwi

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

FI,FO

[27, 57, 62]

Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch. & Savat.) Tang & F. T. Wang

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[46]

Elsholtzia kachinensis Prain

1.40

0.09

0.13

0.00304

ED,ME,FO

[28, 29, 46, 63, 72]

Equisetum debile Roxb. ex Vaucher

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00139

ME,OT

[27, 28, 46, 58]

Equisetum hyemale L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,OT

[28, 46, 67]

Equisetum pratense Ehrh.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 67]

Equisetum ramosissimum Desf.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[27, 28, 65]

Eriocaulon australe R. Br.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Eriocaulon buergerianum Körn.

1.00

0.11

0.11

0.00104

ME

[2729, 45, 46, 59]

Eriocaulon cinereum R. Br.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 63]

Eriocaulon decemflorum Maxim.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[27]

Eriocaulon robustius Makino

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Euphorbia thymifolia L.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 68]

Euryale ferox Salisb.

3.00

0.18

0.54

0.06088

ED,ME,FO,GR,LI,OR,ID

[27, 29, 45, 46, 57, 58, 6265]

Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ME,FI,FO

[27, 28, 46]

Geranium sibiricum L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Geum aleppicum Jacq.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00244

ED,ME,ID

[28, 29, 46, 67]

Glaux maritima L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ED

[28, 70]

Glechoma longituba (Nakai) Kuprian.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 63]

Glycine soja Siebold & Zucc.

3.50

0.07

0.25

0.00974

ED,ME,FI,FO,GR,EN

[28, 29, 57, 67]

Glycyrrhiza pallidiflora Maxim.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00078

ME,FI,GR

[28, 29, 46]

Halerpestes cymbalaria Greene

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Halerpestes ruthenica (Jacq.) Ovcz.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

PE

[28]

Hemarthria altissima (Poir.) Stapf & C. E. Hubb.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FO,FI

[27, 28]

Hemarthria compressa (L. f.) R. Br.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Hydrilla verticillata (L. f.) Royle

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00104

FO,GR

[27, 28, 64]

Hydrocharis dubia (Blume) Backer

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ED,FO,GR

[2729]

Hygrophila salicifolia (Vahl) Nees

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Inula japonica Thunb.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Iris tectorum Maxim.

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00116

ME,OR

[27, 29, 46, 59]

Ixeris japonica Nakai

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Ixeris polycephala Cass.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[29]

Juncus effusus L.

1.71

0.13

0.21

0.00731

ME,FI,OT

[2729, 46, 64, 65, 67]

Kyllinga brevifolia Rottb.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Kyllinga colorata (L.) Druce

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Lactuca tatarica C. A. Mey.

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

ED,FO

[28]

Lagedium sibiricum (L.) Soják

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ED

[70]

Lamium amplexicaule L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 79]

Lamium barbatum Siebold & Zucc.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Lapsana apogonoides Maxim.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

FO

[28, 29, 57]

Leersia hexandra Sw.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00052

ME,FO,ID

[28, 46]

Leersia japonica Makino

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[46]

Leersia oryzoides (L.) Sw.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Lemna minor L.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00244

ME,FO,GR

[28, 48, 59, 62]

Lemna trisulca L.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

FO

[27, 29, 62]

Limonium sinense Kuntze

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Lobelia chinensis Lour.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 58]

Lotus tenuis Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Ludwigia adscendens (L.) H. Hara

1.17

0.11

0.13

0.00244

ME,FO

[2729, 46, 58, 62]

Ludwigia hyssopifolia (G. Don) Exell

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Ludwigia prostrata Roxb.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00052

ME,FO

[27, 46, 62]

Lycopus lucidus Turcz.

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00174

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46, 69, 70]

Lycoris radiata (L'Hér.) Herb.

2.50

0.07

0.18

0.00812

ED,ME,PE,LI,FI,OT,ID

[2729, 46]

Lygodium japonicum (Thunb.) Sw.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00209

ME,PE,ED

[28, 29, 46, 77]

Lysimachia christinae Hance

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[2729, 46, 58]

Lysimachia congestiflora Hemsl.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[2729, 46]

Lysimachia fortunei Maxim.

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00174

ME,FO

[2729, 46, 58]

Lysimachia heterogenea Klatt

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

ME,GR

[28]

Lythrum salicaria L.

1.50

0.14

0.21

0.01113

ME,OR,FO,ID

[2729, 46, 58, 62, 64, 65]

Marsilea quadrifolia L.

1.71

0.13

0.21

0.00974

ED,ME,FO,GR

[2729, 46, 56, 58, 59]

Mazus japonicus (Thunb.) Kuntze

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[27, 46]

Melilotus indicus (L.) All.

2.33

0.05

0.13

0.00244

ME,FO,GR,EN

[28, 46, 57]

Mentha haplocalyx Briq.

1.67

0.21

0.36

0.02087

ED,ME,ID

[2729, 45, 46, 58, 59, 65, 67, 70, 78, 77]

Microstegium ciliatum A. Camus

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

FI,FO

[28, 29]

Mimulus tenellus Bunge

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00052

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Miscanthus floridulus Warb. ex K. Schum. & Lauterb.

1.83

0.11

0.20

0.00765

ME,FO,FI,EN

[2729, 46, 57, 62]

Miscanthus sacchariflorus (Maxim.) Hack.

2.00

0.09

0.18

0.00435

FI,FO,EN

[27, 28, 45, 57, 62]

Miscanthus sinensis Andersson

2.00

0.11

0.21

0.00835

ME,FI,FO,EN

[2729, 45, 46, 62]

Monochoria hastata (L.) Solms

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ED

[28, 56]

Monochoria korsakowii Regel & Maack

2.00

0.14

0.29

0.01855

ED,ME,FO,OR,GR

[2729, 46, 56, 57, 62, 64]

Monochoria vaginalis (Burm. f.) C. Presl ex Kunth

1.67

0.11

0.18

0.00696

ED,ME,FO,GR

[27, 46, 56, 57, 62, 70]

Mosla dianthera (Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb.) Maxim.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,PE

[28, 29, 46]

Murdannia keisak (Hassk.) Hand.-Mazz.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Murdannia triquetra G. Brückn.

2.00

0.07

0.14

0.00278

ME,ED,FO

[27, 29, 46, 49]

Myosoton aquaticum Moench

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00157

ME,ED,FO

[28, 29, 46]

Myriophyllum spicatum L.

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00116

ME,FO

[2729, 64]

Myriophyllum verticillatum L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

FO

[27, 28, 64]

Najas foveolata A. Braun ex Magnus

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

FO,GR

[28]

Najas graminea Delile

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00046

FO,GR

[28, 29]

Najas marina L.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00139

FO,GR

[27, 28, 62, 64]

Najas minor All.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00139

FO,GR

[27, 28, 62, 64]

Nanocnide japonica Blume

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[27, 28, 46]

Nanocnide lobata Wedd.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,GR

[28, 29, 46]

Nasturtium officinale R. Br.

2.25

0.07

0.16

0.00417

ED,ME,OR,ID

[28, 46, 58, 65]

Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn.

2.22

0.16

0.36

0.02087

ED,ME,OR,FO

[27, 29, 45, 58, 46, 59, 62, 65, 66]

Nepeta cataria L.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00139

ME,ID

[28, 29, 46, 66]

Nuphar pumila (Timm) DC.

2.00

0.13

0.25

0.01136

ME,ED,OR,FO

[27, 29, 46, 54, 58, 59, 62]

Nymphaea tetragona Georgi

3.13

0.14

0.45

0.02899

ED,LI,ME,OR,GR

[27, 29, 45, 46, 58, 62, 64, 65]

Nymphoides indica (L.) Kuntze

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

FO,GR

[27]

Nymphoides peltata (S. G. Gmel.) Kuntze

2.13

0.14

0.30

0.01971

ME,FO,GR,OR,ED

[2729, 46, 58, 59, 62, 70]

Oenanthe benghalensis Benth. & Hook.f.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Oenanthe javanica DC.

1.36

0.25

0.34

0.02313

ED,ME,FO

[2729, 45, 46, 5658, 6466, 72, 70, 76]

Oenanthe sinensis Dunn

3.00

0.02

0.05

0.00026

ED,ME,FO

[28]

Oenothera rosea Aiton

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Origanum vulgare L.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00157

ME,ID,LI

[28, 29, 46]

Ottelia acuminata (Gagnep.) Dandy

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ED,ME

[65, 75]

Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers.

2.60

0.09

0.23

0.00942

ED,ME,OR,GR,FO

[2729, 46, 59]

Panicum paludosum Roxb.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Paspalum dilatatum Poir.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

FO

[29, 40, 62]

Paspalum distichum L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

FO,EN

[27, 62]

Paspalum paspaloides Scribn.

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

FO,EN

[28]

Paspalum thunbergii Kunth ex Steud.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[57, 62]

Penthorum chinense Pursh

2.33

0.05

0.13

0.00244

ED,ME,FO,GR

[28, 29, 46]

Phalaris arundinacea L.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00104

FO,FI

[2729]

Phragmites australis Trin. ex Steud.

3.71

0.13

0.46

0.03693

ED,FI,ME,LI,EN,OT,OR

[27, 29, 45, 46, 62, 64, 65]

Phragmites karka (Retz.) Trin. ex Steud.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00070

ME,FI,EN

[28, 46]

Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Phytolacca acinosa Roxb.

2.75

0.07

0.20

0.00510

ED,ME,PE,ID

[2729, 69]

Pilea notata C. H. Wright

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00174

ME,FO

[2729, 58, 46]

Pistia stratiotes L.

1.50

0.14

0.21

0.00835

ME,FO,GR

[2729, 46, 58, 57, 59, 62]

Plantago asiatica L.

1.20

0.09

0.11

0.00261

ME,FO,ED

[28, 46, 57, 65, 70]

Plantago lanceolata L.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ME,FO

[28, 46]

Plantago major L.

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00145

ME,ED

[28, 46, 69, 70, 76]

Pluchea indica (L.) Less.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Poa acroleuca Steud.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[28]

Pogonatherum crinitum Kunth

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,FO

[28, 29, 46]

Polygonum amphibium L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 46, 55]

Polygonum aviculare L.

1.50

0.14

0.21

0.01391

ED,ME,FO,ID,PE

[28, 29, 46, 57, 58, 67, 70, 74]

Polygonum barbatum L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 46]

Polygonum capitatum Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 58]

Polygonum chinense L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Polygonum excurrens Steward

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[55]

Polygonum hydropiper L.

1.41

0.30

0.43

0.07096

ME,ED,FO,OT,PE,ID

[28, 29, 45, 46, 5053, 55, 5759, 62, 63, 67, 70, 75]

Polygonum japonicum Meisn.

1.17

0.11

0.13

0.00244

ME,PE

[2729, 46, 55, 58]

Polygonum jucundum Meisn.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ME,PE

[55, 58]

Polygonum kawagoeanum Makino

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[58]

Polygonum lapathifolium L.

2.13

0.14

0.30

0.03154

ED,ME,FO,PE,LI,ID,EN,GR

[27, 46, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 67]

Polygonum lapathifolium var. salicifolium Sibth.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00116

ME,PE,LI,ID

[55, 58]

Polygonum longisetum var. rotundatum A. J. Li

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00116

ME,ID

[27, 46, 55, 58]

Polygonum macranthum Meisn.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[55, 58]

Polygonum nepalense Meisn.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 46, 58]

Polygonum orientale L.

2.60

0.18

0.46

0.05276

ED,ME,FO,PE,LI,OR,ID

[2729, 45, 46, 55, 5759, 62]

Polygonum perfoliatum L.

2.50

0.07

0.18

0.00348

ME,PE,ID

[27, 28, 46, 58]

Polygonum persicaria L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00104

ME,FO,PE

[28, 58, 67]

Polygonum posumbu Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[58]

Polygonum sibiricum Laxm.

2.00

0.02

0.04

0.00012

ME,FO

[28]

Polygonum sieboldii Meisn.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Polygonum taquetii H. Lév.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[58]

Polygonum thunbergii Siebold & Zucc.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00209

ED,ME,FO,ID

[28, 46, 58]

Polygonum viscosum Buch.-Ham. ex D. Don

1.67

0.05

0.09

0.00130

ED,ME,ID

[28, 58, 63]

Potamogeton crispus L.

2.00

0.11

0.21

0.00835

ED,ME,FO,GR

[27, 29, 35, 46, 62, 64]

Potamogeton cristatus Regel & Maack

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ME,FO

[46, 62]

Potamogeton distinctus A. Benn.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

FO,GR

[27, 28, 62]

Potamogeton lucens L.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

GR

[27, 62]

Potamogeton maackianus A. Benn.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Potamogeton malaianus Miq.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00104

FO,GR

[27, 28, 62]

Potamogeton natans L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00078

ME,FO,GR

[46, 54, 64]

Potamogeton octandrus Poir.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Potamogeton oxyphyllus Miq.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[62]

Potamogeton pectinatus L.

1.60

0.09

0.14

0.00348

ME,FO,GR

[2729, 46, 62]

Potamogeton perfoliatus L.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[46]

Potamogeton pusillus L.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00046

FO,GR

[27, 62]

Potentilla anserina L.

2.17

0.11

0.23

0.01357

ED,ME,FO,ID,OT,LI

[28, 29, 46, 70, 69, 79]

Potentilla discolor Bunge

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Potentilla flagellaris D. F. K. Schltdl.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00093

ED,ME,FO,GR

[28, 29]

Potentilla kleiniana Wight & Arn.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Potentilla reptans L.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ED,ME

[28, 46]

Prunella vulgaris L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Pseudoraphis sordida (Thwaites) S. M. Phillips & S. L. Chen

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[27, 29]

Ranunculus cantoniensis DC.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[28, 29, 46, 58]

Ranunculus chinensis Bunge

1.17

0.11

0.13

0.00244

ME,PE

[2729, 46, 58, 68]

Ranunculus japonicus Thunb.

1.17

0.11

0.13

0.00244

ME,PE

[2729, 46, 58, 74]

Ranunculus sceleratus L.

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[28, 29, 46, 58, 59]

Ranunculus sieboldii Miq.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[2729, 46]

Ranunculus ternatus Thunb.

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[2729, 46, 58]

Reynoutria japonica Houtt.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00116

ED,ME,PE,ID

[28, 46]

Roegneria ciliaris (Trin.) Nevski

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

FO

[28, 29, 57]

Rorippa dubia (Pers.) Hara

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00116

ED,ME,FO,ID

[28, 29]

Rorippa globosa (Turcz.) Hayek

1.60

0.09

0.14

0.00348

ED,FO,ID

[27, 28, 58, 62, 67]

Rorippa islandica (Oeder) Borbás

3.33

0.05

0.18

0.00348

ED,ME,FO,ID

[27, 28, 45]

Rotala indica Koehne

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00139

ED,ME,FO

[27, 28, 63, 62]

Rotala rotundifolia (Buch.-Ham. ex Roxb.) Koehne

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00093

ME,FO

[46, 75, 29, 62]

Rumex acetosa L.

3.17

0.11

0.34

0.01652

ED,ME,FO,PE,ID

[2729, 46, 58, 65]

Rumex crispus L.

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00145

ED,ME

[28, 30, 46, 67, 79]

Rumex dentatus L.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00244

ME,FO,PE

[27, 28, 46, 62]

Rumex japonicus Houtt.

2.60

0.09

0.23

0.00942

ED,ME,FO,ID,LI

[28, 29, 46, 57, 58]

Rumex maritimus L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,FO

[28, 29, 63]

Rumex nepalensis Spreng.

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00116

ME,ID

[28, 29, 46, 68]

Rumex patientia L.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00116

ED,ME,ID,LI

[28, 46]

Rungia chinensis Benth.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Saccharum spontaneum L.

3.00

0.05

0.16

0.00313

FI,FO,OT,EN

[2729]

Sacciolepis indica (L.) Chase

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[27, 28]

Sacciolepis myosuroides (R. Br.) A.Camus

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

FO

[28, 29]

Sagina japonica (Sw. ex Steud.) Ohwi

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[27, 28, 46, 58]

Sagittaria pygmaea Miq.

1.25

0.07

0.09

0.00174

ME,FO,GR

[2729, 46]

Sagittaria trifolia L.

1.88

0.14

0.27

0.01739

ED,ME,FO,LI,OR

[2729, 45, 46, 63, 65, 64]

Salicornia europaea L.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00087

ME,ID,EN

[27, 28]

Salvia plebeia R. Br.

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00046

ME

[2729, 46]

Salvinia natans (L.) All.

1.89

0.16

0.30

0.01331

ME,FO,GR

[2730, 46, 57, 58, 62, 64]

Saururus chinensis Hort. ex Loudon

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,GR

[28, 29, 46]

Scirpus juncoides Roxb.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ME,FI

[28, 46]

Scirpus planiculmis F.Schmidt

2.75

0.07

0.20

0.00765

ED,ME,FI,FO,LI,EN

[28, 57, 62, 67]

Scirpus tabernaemontani Salzm. ex Ball

2.50

0.11

0.27

0.01304

ME,FI,FO,EN,OR

[27, 28, 45, 57, 64, 65]

Scirpus triangulatus Roxb.

1.40

0.09

0.13

0.00304

ME,FO,FI

[28, 29, 45, 46, 67]

Scirpus triqueter L.

1.43

0.13

0.18

0.00406

FI,FO

[2729, 45, 57, 62, 64]

Scirpus wallichii Nees

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Scirpus yagara Ohwi

2.57

0.13

0.32

0.01826

ME,FI,FO,ID,LI

[27, 28, 45, 46, 59, 62, 64]

Scrophularia ningpoensis Hemsl.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Sesbania cannabina (Retz.) Poir.

2.67

0.05

0.14

0.00417

ME,FI,FO,GR,EN,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Sinosenecio oldhamianus (Maxim.) B. Nord.

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00046

FO,GR

[28, 57]

Sium suave Walter

1.00

0.07

0.07

0.00093

ME,FO

[28, 29, 46, 64]

Solanum torvum Sw.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Sparganium stoloniferum (Graebn.) Buch.-Ham. ex Juz.

1.78

0.16

0.29

0.02505

ME,OR,FO,FI,GR,OT

[2729, 45, 46, 57, 59, 62, 64]

Spilanthes paniculata Wall.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleid.

1.50

0.18

0.27

0.01304

ME,FO,GR

[2729, 4648, 59, 63, 64, 62]

Stachys adulterina Hemsl.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00162

ED,ME

[27, 46, 58, 61]

Stachys chinensis Bunge ex Benth.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[46, 64]

Stachys japonica Miq.

1.75

0.07

0.13

0.00325

ED,ME,ID,LI

[2729, 58]

Stachys oblongifolia Wall.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,FO

[28, 29, 46]

Stellaria uliginosa Murray

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

ME,FO

[28, 46]

Stephania japonica (Thunb.) Miers

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[2729, 46, 80]

Suaeda glauca Bunge

1.60

0.09

0.14

0.00464

ED,ME,ID,OT

[2729, 46, 70]

Suaeda salsa Pall.

2.00

0.05

0.11

0.00209

ED,FO,GR,ID

[27, 29, 70]

Thalictrum simplex L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Trapa bicornis L. f.

1.67

0.16

0.27

0.01957

ED,ME,FO,ID,LI

[27, 29, 45, 46, 57, 58, 62, 65, 73]

Trapa bispinosa Roxb.

2.33

0.05

0.13

0.00244

ED,ME,FO,LI

[28, 29, 46]

Trapa incisa Siebold & Zucc.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00278

ED,ME,FO,ID

[27, 29, 46, 65]

Trapa maximowiczii Korsh.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ED,LI

[28, 29]

Trifolium pratense L.

2.50

0.04

0.09

0.00116

ME,FO,GR,ID

[28, 46]

Typha angustata Bory & Chaub.

1.50

0.04

0.05

0.00035

ME,FI

[28, 46]

Typha angustifolia L.

1.63

0.14

0.23

0.00904

ED,ME,FI

[2729, 45, 46, 64, 65, 67]

Typha latifolia L.

2.17

0.11

0.23

0.00904

FI,ME,ED,OR

[28, 29, 46, 64, 65, 70]

Typha orientalis C. Presl

2.13

0.14

0.30

0.01577

ME,FI,ED,OR

[2729, 33, 34, 46, 59, 64]

Typhonium giganteum Engl.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Urtica angustifolia Fisch. ex Hornem.

2.33

0.05

0.13

0.00244

ED,ME,FI,ID

[28, 29, 46]

Utricularia aurea Lour.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

FO,OR

[58, 60]

Utricularia vulgaris L.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

FO

[64]

Valeriana flaccidissima Maxim.

1.00

0.02

0.02

0.00003

ME

[28]

Valeriana officinalis L.

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[28, 29, 46]

Vallisneria natans (Lour.) H. Hara

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ME,FO

[27, 28, 46]

Verbena officinalis L.

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[28, 29, 46, 68, 78]

Veronica anagallis-aquatica L.

1.33

0.05

0.07

0.00070

ED,ME

[28, 29, 46]

Veronica undulata Wall.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00012

ME

[28, 29]

Vicia bungei Ohwi

2.00

0.04

0.07

0.00046

FO,GR

[28, 57]

Viola grypoceras A.Gray

1.00

0.05

0.05

0.00026

ME

[2729]

Viola inconspicua Blume

1.00

0.09

0.09

0.00072

ME

[2729, 46, 58]

Wolffia arrhiza (L.) Wimm.

1.50

0.07

0.11

0.00209

ED,FO,GR

[2729, 48]

Zantedeschia aethiopica (L.) Spreng.

1.00

0.04

0.04

0.00023

OR,OT

[27, 29]

Zizania latifolia Turcz.

3.33

0.16

0.54

0.06262

ED,ME,FI,FO,OT,ID,GR,OR

[27, 29, 39, 45, 46, 57, 62, 64, 65]

UV: Use value; RFC: Relative Frequency of Citation; CI: Cultural Importance Index; CV: Cultural Value Index.

Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) varied between 0.02 (55 species, nearly 20% of the total) to 0.3 (Table 4). The top three species based on RFC were Polygonum hydropiper (RFC = 0.3), Oenanthe javanica (RFC = 0.25) and Mentha haplocalyx (RFC = 0.21). The next highest score was for Acorus calamus (RFC = 0.20) (Table 4). Many species with high RFC scores were likely to be used over extensive geographical areas, while many of those scoring just 0.02 were likely to be used only very locally.

Cultural Importance scores (CI) ranged between 0.02 (48 species, including Rungia chinensis and A. gramineum) and 0.54 (E. ferox and Z. latifolia) (Table 4), while those for Cultural Value (CV) ranged from 0.00003 (the same 48 species as for CI) and 0.07096 (Polygonum hydropiper) (Table 4). Species with the lowest CI or CV scores had only one kind of use and were mentioned only in one literature source.

Significant correlations were found between the scores of species for RFC, CI, and CV (Figures 2, 3 and 4), once the data had been normalized appropriately. Five of the top ten species according to RFC also appeared in the top ten lists for CI and CV. These species are Polygonum hydropiper, P. orientale, Euryale ferox, Zizania latifolia, and Coix lacryma-jobi. The 48 species with the lowest CV scores were also lowest according to UV, RFC and CI.
Figure 2

The correlation between Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) and Cultural Importance (CI).

Figure 3

The correlation between Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) and Cultural Value Index (CV).

Figure 4

The correlation between Cultural Value Index (CV) and Cultural Importance (CI).

Discussion

Diversity of wetland useful plant species

The 350 wetland species recorded as traditionally used in China according to the literature are distributed unevenly across 66 families. The top families are Poaceae, Cyperaceae, Polygonaceae, Lamiaceae, Asteraceae, Rannunculaceae, Hydrocharitaceae and Potamogetonaceae. An uneven distribution of useful wetland species by plant family has also been found elsewhere in the world [11, 8890], for instance in Manipur (India) where Jain et al. found that Polygonaceae, Araceae, Cyperaceae and Poaceae contributed disproportionately to the list of useful species [11]. Coincidentally, many of the top families found in the Manipur study are also dominant or abundant in wetland plant communities in many parts of China [9196]. Species scoring highly in our study and which also have wide distributions elsewhere in the world, such as Phragmites australis, Polygonum hydropiper and Zizania latifolia, are always mentioned frequently in the literature from other places. All have high UV, CI and CV values according to our study (Table 4). This suggests that families rich in wetland species are more likely to be used than others, the key factor being the local presence of species potentially available for people’s attention and possible use. This result is similar to those reported for other regions [23]. Moerman et al. have argued in the case of medicinal plants that the characteristics of the local flora have a big influence on people’s knowledge [97]. The more often people come into contact with particular elements of the flora, the more likely they are to find uses for them. Knowledge about the usefulness of such plants will tend to grow disproportionately, as experience is accumulated. Traditional knowledge is always related to local people’s contact with the local environment [23].

The characteristics of usage of wetland useful species

Our results show that wetland plants have been used for multiple purposes in most parts of China. The three most important uses are provision of medicine, food and fodder (Table 2), all required regularly by people as they go about their daily lives [11, 13, 98, 99]. Providing people with sources of green manure is a further noteworthy use made of wetland plants, with 53 species being used. Adding fertility to the soil is a basic necessity in China, which remains fundamentally an agricultural country. Providing people with sources of fiber is another regular use made of wetland plants. People in China have had a long history of using plant fiber for making cloth, rope and other articles and a rich store of knowledge about the use of wetland plants for fiber extraction and use has been accumulated by people living in and around wetlands [100].

Besides providing local people with material necessities for their everyday lives, wetland plants also provide other products used less frequently, as well as a range of services. Some plants are used as ornamentals, such as Polygonum orientale. Phragmites australis, Miscanthus sinensis, Miscanthus sacchariflorus, while others are important for the strengthening of embankments and protecting soil erosion. Twenty-two species provide raw materials for making wine. China has a cornucopia of traditional knowledge relating to liquor-making; our results confirm that a substantial part of this knowledge relates to wetland species, even though much of this knowledge is historical and not known by current generations. Wetlands can be breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other nuisance insects, reducing agricultural production or transmitting disease, so considerable traditional knowledge of wetland plants relating to pesticides may yet prove to be useful in the modern world. There are also some species having important cultural values, for example the flowers of Zantedeschia aethiopica used commonly in sacrificial rites.

Compared with the uses mentioned above, the use of wetland plants for industrial purpose is comparatively recent. Industrially, wetland plants are mostly used as sources of industrial raw materials. For instance, Scirpus yagara is used as a raw material in the production of ethyl alcohol and glycerol, while Mentha haplocalyx can be a source of volatile oils. These plants can be important source of cash for local people.

Wetland plants provide people with many types of products valuable for subsistence living. The wealth of traditional knowledge that has accumulated about the uses of wetland plants is a reflection of the close relationships traditionally existing between people and their local environments, in this case specifically relating to wetlands. Much of this knowledge is disappearing today along with the loss of traditional lifestyles and retreat of wetlands. Systematic ethnobotanical surveys of traditional knowledge relating to wetlands are therefore needed, while such knowledge still exists.

Comparison of some quantitative indexes

An increasing number of papers have appeared over recent years discussing the use of quantitative methods in ethnobotanical research [101, 102]. In particular, many new parameters have been suggested for evaluating the cultural importance or significance of plants and determine information consensus between informants [2426, 103]. The use of such indexes can not only advance the development of ethnobotany, but can also make it possible to compare results between different regions or cultural groups, as well as undertaking meta-analyses.

Use Value (UV) is one of the most frequently used indexes for evaluating ‘the relative usefulness of plants to people’ [23, 24, 83, 84]. It has been successfully applied in many contexts [104108]. With respect to an analysis of the literature, such as that here, UV reflects not only the number of uses made of a plant as well as the number of literature sources mentioning it. So a plant with high UV value does not necessarily mean that it has multiple uses nor that it is necessarily mentioned in many publications, as we have discussed in an earlier paper [109]. To illustrate this point, three species (Najas graminea, Potamogeton pusillus and Monochoria korsakowii) were all found to have UV = 2 in the present study, but actually the first two of these are only mentioned in two literature sources with two uses in each case, while the third is mentioned in 8 sources but only for one type of use. Among those plants with UV = 1, they have the same total numbers of different uses recorded in the literature and the numbers of literature recording these uses. Although their UV values are the lowest, it does not mean that they have few uses. However, some plants with higher UV values are indeed versatile, such as P. australis, Z. latifolia, and N. tetragona. These plants have a common feature: mentioned by a higher number of literature. So the UV value in a literature study may give us a bias. When using UV index to evaluate a plant, we should use the number of the literature recorded it for reference.

According the formula used for calculating FUV, we can find that FUV depends on the UV of species in a family. So FUV has a similar shortcoming to UV.

Compared with UV, RFC, CI and CV have considered more factors that may lead to a bias. RFC is as same as %P designed in one of our previous papers [109]. Although it has considered the number of the literature which mentions a given species and the total number of literature concerned in the study, it does not take into account the number of uses mentioned in the literature. It just reflects the frequency of a species mentioned by the literature. There are significantly positive correlations between RFC and CI (R2 = 0.767, p < 0.001) and CV (R2 = 0.841, p < 0.001), respectively (Figure 2 and 3). Because RFC does not consider the number of uses, it will not show the difference of the importance and use values between species. Compared with RFC, CI and CV are two more comprehensive indexes. They consider not only the frequency cited by the literature, but also the number of uses recorded in the literature. There is a significant correlation between CI and CV (R2 = 0.980, p < 0.001). The species with higher CI values often have higher CV, such as P. hydropiper and Z. latifolia. Compared with CI, CV is more sensitive to the information recorded in the literature and is more effective to show the differences of use value and frequency being cited in the literature between species.

In fact, many indexes used in quantitative ethnobotany are related to the use categories. The method of use type classification will affect greatly the calculation results. However, it is often very difficult to produce a perfect scheme of use categories which could be closer to the truth. What can we do is to try our best to make the use categories more reasonable.

Conclusion

The wide distribution of many species of wetland plants [110, 111] makes it possible to gain a general picture of the uses made of such plants on a macro-scale. A principal conclusion from the present study is that the biggest uses of wetland species, in terms of the number of citations in the literature, are for medicine, food and fodder. We conclude that it is whether or not particular species are growing locally that is a major determinant over whether people actually use them. Cultural Value (CV) and Cultural Importance (CI) are judged to be the most useful quantitative indices for providing measures of the relative importance and usefulness of wetland species, based on analyses of citations in literature that is not specifically ethnobotanical. However, such publications cannot provide detailed information about relationships between wetland plants and people, such as details of the ways in which people use and manage them. China is rich in both wetlands and traditional knowledge of wetland plants, but both wetlands and traditional knowledge are rapidly being lost. Traditional knowledge about wetland plants has much to offer for modern needs, such as the sustainable use of wetland plants, conservation and industrial development. We therefore conclude that there is a great need for detailed systematic ethnobotanical studies on wetland plants to be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Dr. Alan Hamilton for assisting with the English. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments for the paper. This study was financially supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31170299 and 31370355).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Yangzhou University

References

  1. Bekalo TH, Woodmatas SD, Woldemariam ZA: An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by local people in the lowlands of Konta Special Woreda, southern nations, nationalities and peoples regional state, Ethiopia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009, 5: 26-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Patra R: Vaastu Shastra: towards sustainable development. Sust Dev. 2009, 17 (4): 244-256.Google Scholar
  3. Rana MMP: Urbanization and sustainability: challenges and strategies for sustainable urban development in Bangladesh. Environ Dev Sustain. 2011, 13 (1): 237-256.Google Scholar
  4. Huai H, Xu J: Indigenous knowledge: an inexhaustible “information bank” for toxin research. Toxicon. 2000, 38 (6): 745-746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ramirez CR: Ethnobotany and the loss of traditional knowledge in the 21st Century. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2007, 5: 245-247.Google Scholar
  6. Volpato G, Godínez D, Beyra A: Migration and ethnobotanical practices: The case of tifey among Haitian immigrants in Cuba. Hum Ecol. 2009, 37 (1): 43-53.Google Scholar
  7. Cetinkale SG, Acıksöz S: Sustainability of traditional pattern in urban landscape: The case of Bartin. J Agric Sci. 2007, 13 (2): 81-88.Google Scholar
  8. Wu T, Petriello MA: Culture and biodiversity losses linked. Science. 2011, 331 (6013): 30-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Denny P: Biodiversity and wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag. 1994, 3 (1): 55-61.Google Scholar
  10. Schuyt KD: Economic consequences of wetland degradation for local populations in Africa. Ecol Econ. 2005, 53: 177-190.Google Scholar
  11. Jain A, Sundriyal M, Roshnibala S, Kotoky R, Kanjilal PB, Singh HB, Sundriyal RC: Dietary use and conservation concern of edible wetland plants at Indo-Burma hotspot: a case study from Northeast India. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2011, 7: 29-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Panda A, Misra MK: Ethnomedicinal survey of some wetland plants of South Orissa and their conservation. Indian J Tradit Know. 2011, 10 (2): 296-303.Google Scholar
  13. Gichuki J, Guebas FD, Mugo J, Rabuor CO, Triest L, Dehairs F: Species inventory and the local uses of the plants and fishes of the Lower Sondu Miriu wetland of Lake Victoria, Kenya. Hydrobiologia. 2001, 458: 99-106.Google Scholar
  14. Ambastha K, Hussain SA, Badola R: Resource dependence and attitudes of local people toward conservation of Kabartal wetland: a case study from the Indo-Gangetic plains. Wetl Ecol Manag. 2007, 15 (4): 287-302.Google Scholar
  15. Ehrenfeld JG: Exotic invasive species in urban wetlands: environmental correlates and implications for wetland management. J Appl Ecol. 2008, 45 (4): 1160-1169.Google Scholar
  16. Zheng X, Li C, Huang G, Yang Z: Research progress in effects of urbanization on wetland ecosystem in watershed. Wetl Sci. 2008, 6 (1): 87-96.Google Scholar
  17. Vallet J, Daniel H, Beaujouan V, Rozé F: Plant species response to urbanization: comparison of isolated woodland patches in two cities of North-Western France. Landscape Ecol. 2008, 23 (10): 1205-1217.Google Scholar
  18. Vermonden K, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G, Hendriks AJ, van Katwijk MM, Roelofs JGM, Lucassen ECHET, Pedersen O, Sand-Jensen K: Species pool versus site limitations of macrophytes in urban waters. Aquat Sci. 2010, 72 (3): 379-389.Google Scholar
  19. McKinney ML: Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 2008, 11: 161-176.Google Scholar
  20. Lei K, Zhang M: The wetland resources in China and the conservation advices. Wetl Sci. 2005, 3 (2): 81-86.Google Scholar
  21. Albuquerque UP, Medeiros PM: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis applied to ethnobiological research. Ethnobiol Conserv. 2012, 1: 6-Google Scholar
  22. Bletter N: A quantitative synthesis of the medicinal ethnobotany of the Malinké of Mali and the Asháninka of Peru, with a new theoretical framework. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2007, 3: 36-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Molares S, Ladio A: Ethnobotanical review of the Mapuche medicinal flora: use patterns on a regional scale. J Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 122 (2): 251-260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tardío J, Pardo-de-Santayana M: Cultural importance indices: a comparative analysis based on the useful wild plants of Southern Cantabria (Northern Spain). Econ Bot. 2008, 62 (1): 24-39.Google Scholar
  25. de Medeiros PM, Ladio AH, Albuquerque UP: Patterns of medicinal plant use by inhabitants of Brazilian urban and rural areas: A macroscale investigation based on available literature. J Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 150 (2): 729-746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Reyes-García V, Huanca T, Vadez V, Leonard W, Wilkie D: Cultural, practical, and economic value of wild plants: a quantitative study in the Bolivian Amazon. Econ Bot. 2006, 60 (1): 62-74.Google Scholar
  27. Jiangsu Institute of Botany: Flora of Jiangsu. 1977, Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing Ltd, [江苏植物研究所编, 江苏植物志, 江苏人民出版社: 南京, 1977]Google Scholar
  28. Li Y: Weed Flora of China. 1998, Beijing: China Agriculture Press, [李扬汉,中国杂草志, 中国农业出版社: 北京, 1998]Google Scholar
  29. Editorial Committee of Flora of China: Flora of China. 1959–2004, Beijing: Science Press, [中国植物志编委会, 中国植物志, 科学出版社: 北京, 1959–2004]Google Scholar
  30. Liu G, Li J, Shan L, Wang Q: Salvinia natans----Green foods for poultry (家禽的绿色食粮-槐叶萍). Heilongjiang Anim Sci Vet Med. 1999, 2: 14-15.Google Scholar
  31. Jiao B, Gu R, Zhang X: Green manure. 1986, Beijing: China Agriculture Press, [中国绿肥, 农业出版社: 北京, 1986]Google Scholar
  32. Wang S: Use of Azolla imbricata in agriculture, China(满江红在我国农业上的利用). Chin J Soil Sci. 1980, 6: 14-Google Scholar
  33. Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission: Pharmacopoeia of The People’s Republic of China. 2010, Beijing: China Medical Science Press, [国家药典委员会, 中华人民共和国药典, 中国医药科技出版社: 北京, 2010]Google Scholar
  34. Yu H, Du L, Liu X: Integrated utilization of Typha orientalis (香蒲的综合利用). Mod Chin Med. 2007, 9 (9): 31-34.Google Scholar
  35. Hou C, Guo G, Sun X: Value, harm and control measures of Potamogeton crispus (菹草的作用, 危害及预防措施). JiLin Agric. 2011, 7: 229-Google Scholar
  36. Wu W: Arundo donax—a high quality raw material for paper-making (芦竹—一种高产优质的造纸原料). Tianjin Paper Making. 1993, 4: 28-29.Google Scholar
  37. Hu X: Arundo donax is a good species of greening in waterbody rich areas (水网地区绿化好品种-芦竹). Jiangsu Greening. 1996, 1: 31-Google Scholar
  38. Zhang J: Arundo donax var. versicolor, a new resource of aquatic species for greening (水生绿化植物新品种—花叶芦竹). New Rural Technol. 2008, 9: 33-Google Scholar
  39. Zhai C, Sun G, Lu Z, Jiang Z, Zhang X: On Chinese Zizania L. resources and their utilization value (中国菰资源及其应用价值的研究). Resour Sci. 2000, 22 (6): 22-26.Google Scholar
  40. He J, Shang Y: A high quality forage grass, Puspalum dilatatum (优质牧草-毛花雀稗). Agric Tech Serv. 2003, 10: 18-Google Scholar
  41. Li Z, Hao Y: Nutrition constituents of Coix lacryma-jobi and its comprehensive utilization (薏苡营养成分及综合利用). Agric Sci Technol Equip. 2012, 5: 75-76.Google Scholar
  42. Wang Z: Medical value of Coix lacryma-jobi (薏苡的药用价值). Applicable Technol Rural Areas. 2004, 12: 56-57.Google Scholar
  43. Cai J: Nutrition and processing of Eleocharis dulcis (荸荠的营养保健和加工利用). Food and Nutr China. 2005, 2: 40-42.Google Scholar
  44. Liu B, Gao Y, Wu H: Identification and application of three species from Acorus (三种菖蒲的鉴别和应用). Lishizhen Med Materia Medica Res. 2004, 15 (8): 496-Google Scholar
  45. Commerce Ministry of the People’s Republic of China, Institute of Botany of CAS: Flora of China Economic Plants. 1961, Beijing: Science Press, [中华人民共和国商业部土产废品局,中国科学院植研所,中国经济植物志,科学出版社:北京,1961]Google Scholar
  46. Jiangsu New Medicine College (Ed.): A Grand Dictionary of Chinese Medicinal Herbs. 1995, Shanghai: Science Technology Publishing Co, [江苏新医学院,中药大辞典,上海科学技术出版社:上海,1995]Google Scholar
  47. Wang J, Zhan Z: Use of Spirodela polyrrhiza in different history phases (浮萍历代应用探源). Pharm Clin Chin Materia Med. 2011, 2 (4): 39-40.Google Scholar
  48. Zhang Z: Spirodela polyrrhiza, a high quality natural bait for grass carp (草鱼种的优质天然饵料——浮萍). Fishery Guide to be Rich. 2000, 12: 24-Google Scholar
  49. Guo F: Murdannia triquetra, a high production and quality feed (高产优质青饲料—水竹叶). Feed Res. 1985, 2: 31-Google Scholar
  50. Zhao N, Xia G, Xu H, Du J, Pan L: Ethno-medicinal plants from Polygonum in Guizhou (贵州少数民族常用的蓼属植物药). J Med Pharm Chin Minorities. 2012, 18 (7): 31-33.Google Scholar
  51. Zhai S, Fu W, Xue M: Application of Polygonum hydropiper in study of pesticide and veterinary (水蓼在农药和兽药研究中的应用). J Tradit Chin Vet Med. 2008, 27 (4): 72-73.Google Scholar
  52. Lu X: Using Polygonum hydropiper to cure diseases of livestock and poultry (用水蓼治疗畜禽疾病). Yunnan J Anim Sci Vet Med. 2002, 1: 46-Google Scholar
  53. Li S: Leaves of Polygonum hydropiper can be used to treat metrorrhagia (水蓼叶治子宫出血). Chin J Ethnomed Ethnopharmacy. 2001, 3: 157-Google Scholar
  54. Wang B: Introduction to an aquatic plant, Nuphar pumila (水生植物萍蓬草). Garden. 2012, 4: 70-71.Google Scholar
  55. Wang Y, Wang Q, Wang Y: Summery of medicinal plants from Polygonum in China (中国蓼属药用植物综述). ShiZhen J Tradit Chin Med Res. 1996, 7 (3): 172-173.Google Scholar
  56. Fang L, Liu H, Cui J, Xu Z: Traditional use of wetland plants in Dai villages in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan (西双版纳傣族村寨对湿地植物的传统利用). Biodivers Sci. 2006, 14 (4): 300-308.Google Scholar
  57. Chen M, Jia S: Flora of China Forage Plants. 1987, Beijing: China Agriculture Press, [陈默君, 贾慎修, 中国饲用植物志, 中国农业出版社: 北京,1987]Google Scholar
  58. Editing Group of Flora of Fujian: Flora of Fujian. 1982, Fuzhou: Fujian Science & Technology Publishing House, [福建植物志编写组, 福建植物志, 福建科学技术出版社; 福州, 1982]Google Scholar
  59. Teaching and Research Group of Pharmacognosy, Second Military Medical University: An Illustrated Handbook of Medicinal Plants in China. 1960, Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, [第二军医大学药学系生药学教研组, 中国药用植物图鉴,上海教育出版社; 上海, 1960]Google Scholar
  60. Li B: New resources from Utricularia aurea for Aquariums (鱼缸水草新秀—狸藻). Fisheries Sci Technol Inf. 2001, 28 (2): 87-88.Google Scholar
  61. Jing X: Stachys adulterina, a medicinal vegetable (药用蔬菜—草石蚕). Shanghai Vegetables. 2004, 5: 75-Google Scholar
  62. Chen M, Jia S: Forage Plants in China. 2002, Beijing: China Agriculture Press, [陈默君, 贾慎修, 中国饲用植物, 中国农业出版社: 北京,2002]Google Scholar
  63. Gui L, Li J, Tian F, Yang C, Liang S, Tian H: Protection and utilization of Guangxi wetland medicinal plant resources (广西湿地药用植物资源的保护与利用). Contemp Med Forum. 2014, 12 (1): 24-25.Google Scholar
  64. Chu J: The investigation on the resources of aquatic plants in the west of Jilin province (吉林西部水生植物资源的调查). J Baicheng Normal Coll. 2006, 20 (4): 1-4.Google Scholar
  65. Deng F, Sun P, Li Q, Wu G, Deng F: Study on application and wastewater purification values of wetland aquatic plants (湿地水生植物的利用途径与争化污水作用研究). Ecol Economy. 2005, 4: 66-69.Google Scholar
  66. Yang Y, Zhang F, Zhang E, Dong C, A X, Tang C, Xu F, Dai L: The traditional use of agricultural plant resources by the Bulang people in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan province (云南西双版纳布朗族对农业植物的传统利用研究). Chin Agric Sci Bull. 2012, 28 (33): 177-186.Google Scholar
  67. Zhang L, Song B, Wang R, Zhang F, Shangguang T: A study on the wild plant resources of wetlands in Shanxi (山西湿地野生植物资源研究). J Shanxi Univ (Nat Sci Ed ). 1998, 21 (3): 281-285.Google Scholar
  68. Shen S, Qian J, Ren J: Ethnoveterinary plant remedies used by Nu people in NW Yunnan of China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010, 6 (1): 24-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Ju Y, Zhuo J, Liu B, Long C: Eating from the wild: diversity of wild edible plants used by Tibetans in Shangri-la region, Yunnan, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9 (1): 28-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wujisguleng W, Khasbagen K: An integrated assessment of wild vegetable resources in Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2010, 6 (1): 34-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Li F, Li J, Liu B, Zhou J, Long C: Seeds used for Bodhi beads in China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014, 10 (1): 15-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Ghorbani A, Langenberger G, Sauerborn J: A comparison of the wild food plant use knowledge of ethnic minorities in Naban River Watershed National Nature Reserve, Yunnan, SW China. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012, 8 (1): 17-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Hodge WH: Chinese water chestnut or matai—a paddy crop of China. Econ Bot. 1956, 10 (1): 49-65.Google Scholar
  74. Huang J, Pei S, Long C: An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by the Lisu people in Nujiang, northwest Yunnan, China. Econ Bot. 2004, 58 (1): S253-S264.Google Scholar
  75. Huai HY, Pei SJ: Plants used medicinally by folk healers of the Lahu people from the autonomous county of Jinping Miao, Yao, and Dai in southwest China. Econ Bot. 2004, 58 (1): S265-S273.Google Scholar
  76. Keng H: Economic plants of ancient north China as mentioned in Shih Ching (Book of Poetry). Econ Bot. 1973, 28 (4): 391-410.Google Scholar
  77. Fu Y, Guo H, Chen A, Cui J, Padoch C: Relocating plants from swidden fallows to gardens in southwestern China. Econ Bot. 2003, 57 (3): 389-402.Google Scholar
  78. Au DT, Wu J, Jiang Z, Chen H, Lu G, Zhao Z: Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by Hakka in Guangdong, China. J Ethnopharmacol. 2008, 117 (1): 41-50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Shang X, Tao C, Miao X, Wang D, Tangmuke D, Wang Y, Yang Y, Pan H: Ethno-veterinary survey of medicinal plants in Ruoergai region, Sichuan province, China. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012, 142 (2): 390-400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Khuankaew S, Srithi K, Tiansawat P, Jampeetong A, Inta A, Wangpakapattanawong P: Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by Tai Yai in Northern Thailand. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 151 (2): 829-838.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Kang Y, Łuczaj Ł, Kang J, Zhang S: Wild food plants and wild edible fungi in two valleys of the Qinling Mountains (Shaanxi, central China). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9 (1): 26-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Kang Y, Łuczaj Ł, Kang J, Wang F, Hou J, Guo Q: Wild food plants used by the Tibetans of Gongba Valley (Zhouqu county, Gansu, China). J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014, 10 (1): 20-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Phillips O, Gentry AH: The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Econ Bot. 1993, 47 (1): 15-32.Google Scholar
  84. Rossato SC, Leitão-Filho HDF, Begossi A: Ethnobotany of caiçaras of the Atlantic Forest coast (Brazil). Econ Bot. 1999, 53 (4): 387-395.Google Scholar
  85. Ladio AH, Lozada M: Nontimber forest product use in two human populations from northwest Patagonia: a quantitative approach. Hum Ecol. 2001, 29 (4): 367-380.Google Scholar
  86. Heinrich M, Ankli A, Frei B, Weimann C, Sticher O: Medicinal plants in Mexico: Healers’ consensus and cultural importance. Soc Sci Med. 1998, 47 (11): 1859-1871.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Hoffman B, Gallaher T: Importance Indices in Ethnobotany. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2007, 5: 201-218.Google Scholar
  88. Naqinezhad A, Jalili A, Attar F, Ghahreman A, Wheeler BD, Hodgson JG, Shaw SC, Maassoumi A: Floristic characteristics of the wetland sites on dry southern slopes of the Alborz Mts., N. Iran: The role of altitude in floristic composition. Flora-Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants. 2009, 204 (4): 254-269.Google Scholar
  89. Rasingam L: Aquatic and wetland plants of little andaman island, India. J Basic Appl Biol. 2010, 4 (3): 52-59.Google Scholar
  90. Saharia S, Sarma CM: Ethno-medicinal studies on indigenous wetland plants in the tea garden tribes of Darrang and Udalguri district, Assam, India. NeBIO. 2011, 2: 27-33.Google Scholar
  91. Fu W, Li P, Bian X, Wu Y: Dynamics in the succession of vegetation communities in Inner-river wetland in Zhenjiang. Res Environ Yangtze Basin. 2007, 16 (2): 163-168.Google Scholar
  92. Lou Y, Zhao K, Ma K: Change in floristic composition and species diversity of plant community along environment gradient in Honghe National Nature Reserve, China. Acta Ecol Sin. 2007, 27 (9): 3843-3891.Google Scholar
  93. Wu Q, Xia X, Ye J, Jiang L, Miu K, Ding B: Plant diversity and ecosystem health assessment of Sanyang wetland in Wenzhou, Zhejiang. J Zhejiang Univ (Agric Life Sci). 2012, 38 (4): 421-428.Google Scholar
  94. Sun R, Zhang L, Wang T, Chen F, Deng Q: Research on characteristics and species diversity of plant community of different kinds of wetlands in Hefei. Chin Wild Plant Resour. 2013, 32 (4): 34-40.Google Scholar
  95. Cheng L, Chen K, Wang S, Yang S, Su X, Wang J: Plant Diversity of Xiaopohu Wetlands in Qinghai Lake Basin. Wetl Sci. 2013, 11 (4): 460-465.Google Scholar
  96. Jain A, Roshnibala S, Kanjilal PB, Singh RS, Singh HB: Aquatic/semi-aquatic plants used in herbal remedies in the wetlands of Manipur, Northeastern India. Indian J Tradit Know. 2007, 6 (2): 346-351.Google Scholar
  97. Moerman DE, Pemberton RW, Kiefer D, Berlin B: A comparative analysis of five medicinal floras. J Ethnobio. 1999, 19 (1): 49-67.Google Scholar
  98. Siwakoti M: An overview of floral diversity in wetlands of Terai region of Nepal. Our Nature. 2006, 4 (1): 83-90.Google Scholar
  99. Boro A, Sarma GC: Ethnic uses of some wetland plants by the Bodo community in Udalgiri district of Assam, India. Pleione. 2013, 7 (1): 155-159.Google Scholar
  100. Levetin E, McMahon K: Plant & Society. 2008, New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 5Google Scholar
  101. Hoft M, Barik SK, Lykke AM: Quantitative ethnobotany: Applications of multivariate and statistical analyses in ethnobotany. 1999, UNESCO, People and Plants working, paper ParisGoogle Scholar
  102. Hasbagan HH: Quantitative methods in Ethnobotany (II). J Inner Mongolia Normal Univ (Nat Sci Ed). 2010, 39 (4): 417-419.Google Scholar
  103. Heinrich M: Ethnobotany and its role in drug development. Phytother Res. 2000, 14 (7): 479-488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Rokaya MB, Münzbergová Z, Timsina B: Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants from the Humla district of western Nepal. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 130 (3): 485-504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Ayyanar M, Ignacimuthu S: Ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plants commonly used by Kani tribals in Tirunelveli hills of Western Ghats, India. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 134 (3): 851-864.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Cadena-González AL, Sørensen M, Theilade I: Use and valuation of native and introduced medicinal plant species in Campo Hermoso and Zetaquira, Boyacá, Colombia. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013, 9 (1): 23-PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Vitalini S, Iriti M, Puricelli C, Ciuchi D, Segale A, Fico G: Traditional knowledge on medicinal and food plants used in Val San Giacomo (Sondrio, Italy)—An alpine ethnobotanical study. J Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 145 (2): 517-529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Beltran L, Ortiz A, Mariano N, Maldonado B, Reyes V: Factors affecting ethnobotanical knowledge in a mestizo community of the Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014, 10 (1): 14-Google Scholar
  109. Huai H, Dong Q, Liu A: Ethnomedicinal analysis of toxic plants from five ethnic groups in China. Ethnobot Res Appl. 2010, 8: 169-179.Google Scholar
  110. Clevering OA, Lissner J: Taxonomy, chromosome numbers, clonal diversity and population dynamics of Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot. 1999, 64 (3): 185-208.Google Scholar
  111. Saltonstall K: Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002, 99 (4): 2445-2449.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement