# [Wet Thumb Forum]-Weekly Plant focus:"narrow leaf" ludwidgia -- is it really an easy plant?



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

I believe the plant I'm talking about is a hybrid, L. repens X L. arcuata. It was sold to me as "narrow leaf ludwidgia.

I have it growing in two tanks. In one tank it is olive colored to reddish brown, grows well and seems robust. In the other tank it is bright red but it is much more delicate with a tendency to die back from the tip and/or fail to root.

What are other folk's experience with the plant?


Roger Miller


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

I believe the plant I'm talking about is a hybrid, L. repens X L. arcuata. It was sold to me as "narrow leaf ludwidgia.

I have it growing in two tanks. In one tank it is olive colored to reddish brown, grows well and seems robust. In the other tank it is bright red but it is much more delicate with a tendency to die back from the tip and/or fail to root.

What are other folk's experience with the plant?


Roger Miller


----------



## imported_Svennovitch (Feb 1, 2003)

My experience is that it is a really easy plant, that grows really fast. Near the surface the leaves really get a deep red colour.

Not a good picture, but you get the idea


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

I think arcuata is what Florida Aquatic nurseries calls "needle leaf" ludwigia, which is much more narrow than "narrow leaf". What Florida Aquatic nurseries calls "narrow leaf" I think is Ludwigia brevipes. All three, (repens, arcuata, and brevipes) are native to the USA. Repens has the largest range.

For me, repens always has more top growth and very hairy, rooty lower stems. When the growth reaches the water surface, it floats, and branches out in every direction with very thick leaf growth. I do not know if the other two varieties grow the same way or not.


----------



## George Willms (Jul 28, 2004)

I have L. repens x arcuata and find it to be a very easy plant to grow. I've had it in all kinds of conditions and it has grown well in them all. With higher light it gets a deeper red for me.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Robert,

I think you pinned my problem. The LFS where I bought the plant gets their plants from FAN. My "narrow leaf" ludwidgia is then probably L. brevipes rather than the easy-to-grow hybrid. From Kasselman's description L. brevipes "is a demanding, delicate plant with high light requirements."

My plant doesn't actually look very much like Svennovitch's photo. The leaf margins are all completely straight instead of undulating and the color is almost flat rather than variable like the color on L. repens leaves.

My plants look *way* better then the green and leggy photo in Kasselmann.


Roger Miller


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

L. brevipes is _very_ narrow-leaved like L. arcuata but with longer and more orange leaves--nothing really like Svennovitch's picture, which looks like the hybrid. Are you sure you have L. brevipes?

Around here the 'narrow-leaf ludwigia' is L. palustris, which, incidentally, is how FAN labels it. There is no mention of L. brevipes on FAN's website.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

2la,

How could I be sure I have L. brevipes? I'm going entirely on what people are telling me.

You are right, on FAN's website they do say that "narrow leaf" ludwidgia is L. palustris. That of course does not mean that the LFS got what they ordered or knew what they got.

The leaf form (but not color) resembles L. palustris photographed in Kasselmann, but from her written description the plants photographed may actually be emersed-grown plants. My plants don't really resemble Kasselmann's photo of L. palustris, but then it isn't a very illustrative photo. The main difference is that her photo of L. palustris shows leaves that are undulate, like the plant in Svennovitch's photo.

Here are photos of the plant in two different settings. First where it grows with good red color but is slow-growing and delicate:








and second where it grows with less color, but is healthier and faster-growing (sorry, photo taken in a bubble storm)









Now you know what the plant looks like. Y'all can tell me what it is









Given the name confusion, is "narrow leaf ludgwidgia" a good name anyway?

Roger Miller


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

You have L. palustris. I've only seen undulate leaf margins in a very small minority of specimens, usually under very high light. Even under 3wpg, the leaves on my plants stayed just like yours.

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=4138229&uid=704672

L. brevipes, as mentioned, is _very_ narrow-leaved. Here's a link to Erik Leung's photo (hope he doesn't mind!):

http://www.e-aquaria.com/n_brevipes.html


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

Thanks, 2la. That was very helpful. Great pictures, too.


Roger Miller


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

WEll I just got some needle leaf from FAN and it looks like none of these pictures. The leaves are about a half inch to an inch long, skinny, and green, no red whatsoever.

This is what FAN has listed on their WEB site for ludwigia:

LUDWIGIA, BROAD LEAF (LUDWIGIA REPENS) 

LUDWIGIA, NARROW LEAF (LUDWIGIA PALUSTRIS 

LUDWIGIA, NEEDLE LEAF (LUDWIGIA ARCUATA) 

LUDWIGIA, PERUENSIS (LUDWIGIA PERUENSIS) 

So Tula is right, I was confusing brevipes with palustris, but compare this to Oriental Aquariums catalog. Their arcuata looks entirely different fron FANs, if you go by the picture.

Palustris and repens look very much alike. Same coloring. When I have brought both in at the same time, I can not tell them apart. More confusion, Oriental Aquarium does not refer to palustris as a narrow leaf, in fact it is pictured as fatter than repens.

To really make things confusing, OA states the following about repens:

"A very polymorphic plant and it exibits this character from one area to another. They readily cross with other species of the same genus hence identification of sub species and geographical varieties is difficult. This plant has two leaf forms, one with round leaves slightly elongated and the other with laceolate leaves. There are two color forms, red and green"

If the same is true of arcuata, brevipes, palustris, or inclinata, then that would explain why they may look different than pictures portray, or different by growers in different parts of the world.


----------



## imported_Svennovitch (Feb 1, 2003)

Roger,

to me it looks like you have the L. repens x arcuata but with some form of a deficiency. This is how my palistrus looked like:










The green was still some emersed growth, while the red leaves is the submersed growth.


----------



## imported_Svennovitch (Feb 1, 2003)

I also have a picture of the Ludwigia repens x arcuata in emersed conditions:










Ciao,
Sven


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

I agree with Svennovitch. That is definitely repens x arcuata. _L. palustris_ is a broader leaved plant that usually has wavy edges (even in my low light tank). Repens leaves are more oval shaped. The stuff I collected locally is palustris and looks like Sven's stuff. I'll see if I can post a picture or two.

The brevipes picture in Kasselmann isn't a good one. It looks as though it was grown under lower light. In better conditions, it looks like a larger, orange version of arcuata.


----------



## Roger Miller (Jun 19, 2004)

My plants look to me more like 2la's photos then like Sven's. The difference I see with Sven's are the undulating margins (mine are straight) and the evident side veins (none visible on mine). Leaf form is a bad means of identification, but what else do we have at this point?

When I bought the plants they were presumably in an emersed-grown state. The leaves were not green. They were various shades of reddish brown to green. They also had about the same leaf shape shown in the second photo.

Sven, I would agree that the very bright red plants are suffering some sort of deficiency. The more orange plants (my secnd photo) are quite healthy.

Are you guys suggesting that 2la's photos are the hybrid and not L. palustris?


Roger Miller


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Yes.


----------



## hubbahubbahehe (Mar 29, 2004)

Sven, that is absolutely gorgeous..how are you growing this plant emersed?


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

This one could get messy.









My and Roger's plants may be hybrids as long as most of us agree that they are in all likelihood the same plants. I would disagree, however, that either of our plants are _positively_ showing any type of deficiencies. My plants grew uniformly the same way as you see in the pictures all the time almost regardless of how much or how little I fertilized (a very consistent plant).

However, there is L. repens x palustris and L. repens x arcuata. Let's throw in L. palustris, too, for good measure. There were several sources that popped up in a search for L. palustris that were consistent with my plants (emersed growth difficult to tell since I bought my plants submersed):

http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/ludpal3.jpg
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/botany/Botany_courses/fpcourses/401photos/ludwigia_palustris.htm
http://www.nearctica.com/flowers/otos/onag/Lpalus.htm
http://www.mta.ca/~rthompso/nativeflora/group6/Page26c.html
http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/plant_profile.cgi?symbol=LUPA&photoID=ispa4_001_avd.tif

However, it's clear that there are hybrids, varieties, hybrids of varieties, whatever...

http://www.webcityof.com/apljalz.htm

I couldn't care less which name gets attached to my and Roger's plants, so long as it remains consistent and definitive. Anyone raising confirmed L. palustris with pictures or comments on distinguishing characteristics?

2la


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

I have added two pictures to my tank photo gallery. 
http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=4006090712&f=1306023812&m=336108273

(bottom row)The first is of emersed grown _Ludwigia repens x arcuata_. It is the same plant as Roger's. Submersed leaves are much more elongate than palustris leaves. Notice the round leaves of the emersed stuff.

The second is _Ludwigia palustris_ collected locally (Southwest PA). Compared to the hybrid, leaves are much wider, wavier, and widest about half way down the leaf instead of about 3/4 of the way. I intend to scour the patch for flowers the next time I return.

2la: Try growing your stuff emersed. It will have no trouble at all adapting. I guarantee it will look like my and Svennovitch's emersed pictures of the hybrid and not like my field trip pictures or the pic in the first link you provided.

Field trip pics:
http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=4006090712&f=716106075&m=913102575


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

Unfortunately growing plants emersed is not a practical option for me. I no longer have those plants nor do I have the time and resources to grow plants emersed. I'll take your word for it and by no means intend to challenge your authority on the matter, but how do we know that what you've identified is in fact what it is? Did FAN get it wrong?


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

I'm not 100% sure that's what the stuff is, but look at all the pictures and decide for yourself. I don't know what you mean by "your authority", but I find these plant ID threads interesting and fun (really). I'm just trying my best. I certainly don't mean any offense or to come across as a know-it-all. But yes, I do think I'm pretty good at identifying plants. 

I think FAN gets a lot of stuff wrong. I flowered some crypts I got from them and they turned out to be different species.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

OK, my arcuata from FAN looks more like Svens emersed picture, but perhaps a little narrower, but just as green. I am going to have to take a picture. 

Am I the only one with a Oriental Aquarium catalog? Their arcuata picture has leaves that are just about needle like, as didiplis is, and it's orange red in color. You guys should also check out the thread in the database forum on ludwigia repens


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

Emersed photos of arcuata and the other species here:
http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/photos.html


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

No, Cavan, I didn't mean any offense by my question at all, just inquiring as to if there was any way to confirm your IDs, which are certainly more 'authoritative' than mine. E.g., perhaps you've done flower comparisons, spoken or studied with a botanist, are one yourself, etc. I'm comfortable changing the name in my photo gallery until it's proven to be L. palustris or otherwise.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

I was thinking it was the other way around. No harm, no foul I guess.

I'm not a botanist, but yes, I do talk to them, grow stuff emersed for flowers, and so on. I do a lot of research on this kind of thing. If you see a guy in the corner of the book store pouring over a huge fern book for material on the differences in the sori of different _Microsorum_ species, it's probably me.









I'm going back to the place where I found the _Ludwigia palustris_ on Monday. The species flowers all summer, but the flowers don't have any petals (the best distinguishing feature), so they're probably going to be hard to find. But we should know for sure then.


----------



## Cavan Allen (Jul 22, 2004)

The verdict for my _Ludwigia palustris_ is in. It is indeed _Ludwigia palustris_. I went back today and found some flowers. Pictures are here: 
http://aquabotanicwetthumb.infopop.cc/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=4006090712&f=716106075&m=913102575

Compare to these photos:
http://plants.usda.gov/cgi_bin/plant_profile.cgi?symbol=LUPA&photoID=lupa_1h.jpg

Page 355 in Kasselmann describes the flowers, "a distinguishing feature of which is the absence of petals. _Ludwigia palustris_ is thereby distinguishable from other _Ludwigia _ species which have opposite leaves; 4 stamens."

IMO, it is a nicer plant than _L. repens_. If anybody wants some, let me know.


----------



## 2la (Feb 3, 2003)

Cool, thanks for your persistence in tracking down the truth, Cavan!


----------

