Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Typha x glauca
(hybrid cattail)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Typha x glauca (hybrid cattail)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Typha x glauca
  • Preferred Common Name
  • hybrid cattail
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Monocotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • T.latifolia and T. angustifolia hybridize to form T. x glauca, a highly productive emergent wetland macrophyte. This species spreads prolifically by rhizomes (often 4 m/year) af...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Senesced female spikes of Typha x glauca.
TitleSenesced female spikes
CaptionSenesced female spikes of Typha x glauca.
CopyrightSteven J. Hall
Senesced female spikes of Typha x glauca.
Senesced female spikesSenesced female spikes of Typha x glauca.Steven J. Hall
Typha x glauca invades Carex-dominated vegetation.
TitleInvasive habit
CaptionTypha x glauca invades Carex-dominated vegetation.
CopyrightSteven J. Hall
Typha x glauca invades Carex-dominated vegetation.
Invasive habitTypha x glauca invades Carex-dominated vegetation.Steven J. Hall
Leaves and fallen litter of Typha x glauca
TitleLeaves and fallen litter
CaptionLeaves and fallen litter of Typha x glauca
CopyrightSteven J. Hall
Leaves and fallen litter of Typha x glauca
Leaves and fallen litterLeaves and fallen litter of Typha x glaucaSteven J. Hall
Senesced leaves of Typha x glauca.
TitleSenesced leaves
CaptionSenesced leaves of Typha x glauca.
CopyrightSteven J. Hall
Senesced leaves of Typha x glauca.
Senesced leavesSenesced leaves of Typha x glauca.Steven J. Hall

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Typha x glauca Godron, 1844

Preferred Common Name

  • hybrid cattail

Other Scientific Names

  • Typha angustifolia x latifolia Kronfeld

International Common Names

  • English: flag; reed-mace
  • Spanish: espadaña; tul; tule
  • French: massette; quenouilles
  • Russian: rogoz

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

T.latifolia and T. angustifolia hybridize to form T. x glauca, a highly productive emergent wetland macrophyte. This species spreads prolifically by rhizomes (often 4 m/year) after seedlings establish in disturbed vegetation, frequently forming monotypes that reduce wetland plant and animal diversity. T. x glauca thrives under eutrophic conditions and artificially prolonged hydroperiods. In North America, the spread of T. x glauca has closely paralleled the westward advance of T. angustifolia from the east coast. Although T. x glauca is present in both Europe and North America, it appears more invasive in the latter continent. T. x glauca could be economically useful; both parental species were eaten throughout Europe and North America, and leaves were used for weaving. In natural areas, either cutting, burning, or grazing, each followed by flooding, or herbicide, can provide short-term Typha control, but re-growth from rhizomes and a vast soil seed-bank complicate eradication.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Monocotyledonae
  •                     Order: Typhales
  •                         Family: Typhaceae
  •                             Genus: Typha
  •                                 Species: Typha x glauca

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

Typha is a cosmopolitan genus of emergent wetland macrophytes, containing 8-13 species, and requiring taxonomic revision (Smith, 1987). Typha spp. often hybridize, perpetuating taxonomic confusion. One hybrid in particular is ecologically important because of its potential invasiveness, and has been frequently treated as Typha x glauca Godr. This taxon is a hybrid between T. latifolia L. and T. angustifolia L. The name T. x glauca has been used in Europe since 1844, although the taxon was recognized in North America as T. latifolia var. elongata (Dudley, 1886, cited in Hotchkiss and Dozier, 1949), and was later renamed T. angustifolia L. var. elongata Dudley. Hotchkiss and Dozier (1949) list other synonyms for T. x glauca, including T. angustifolia x latifolia Kronfeld, T. elongata (Dudley) Kronfeld, T. latifolia x angustifolia Figert, T. angustifolia var. longispicata Peck, and T. elongata (Dudley) Durand & Jackson. Common names often refer to multiple species within the genus, as species are morphologically similar in many respects. T. x glauca is often confused with its parental species.

Description

Top of page

T. latifolia, T. angustifolia, and T. x glauca are perennial, rhizomatous, emergent wetland macrophytes. Ramets (culms) range from 1-3 m tall, consisting of slender, linear, distichous leaves with sheathing bases, emerging vertically from a central meristem. Ramets often produce a single erect flowering stem consisting of a staminate spike above a pistillate spike. Rhizomes can measure several centimeters in diameter and produce abundant adventitious roots. Smith (1967) distinguished these three Typha species primarily on the basis of pistillate spike characters. Some quantitative macroscopic characters including spike width, gap between pistillate and staminate spikes, and leaf width are useful, but are too variable for conclusive identification, which depends on microscopic floral characteristics. Leaf width, spike length, spike interval, and stigma width provided only 90% identification accuracy when used together to corroborate specimens identified using molecular data (Kuehn and White, 1999).

The following morphological characters are summarized from Smith (1967, 2000). T. latifolia is characterized by: the absence of pistillate bracteoles; broad stigmas; compound pedicels long, soft, and slender (1.5-3.5 mm, visible after flowers are removed from the spike axis); pistillate spikes green at anthesis, black at maturity; pistil hairs linear, colorless; staminate bracteoles colorless; tetrad pollen. Pistillate and staminate spikes are normally contiguous, and mature pistillate spikes (24-36 mm) and leaves (10-29 mm) are wider than in other species. However, T. x glauca can attain leaf widths similar to T. latifolia (Kuehn et al., 1999), especially in vegetative ramets that grow wider where ramet density is low (S Hall, University of Wisconsin, USA, personal communication, 2008).
 
T. angustifolia, in contrast, is characterized by: pistillate bracteoles dark to medium brown; narrow stigmas; pistil hairs brown, with enlarged apices, equaling or exceeding bracteoles; compound pedicels short and stiff, somewhat rough to the touch after flowers are removed from the spike axis; pistillate spikes dark brown; staminate bracteoles brown, sometimes bifid; monad pollen. Pistillate and staminate spikes are normally separated by a gap of 1-12 cm, mature pistillate spikes are 10-22 mm wide, and leaves are 4-14 mm wide.
 
T. x glauca has characters intermediate to its parents: pistillate bracteoles slender, brown-colorless, narrower than stigmas, difficult to distinguish from pistil hairs; pistil hair apices colorless, sometimes with an apical brown cell; narrow, apparently linear stigmas; low seed production; monad, diad, triad, or tetrad pollen. Compound pedicles (0.7-1.3 mm long), leaves (5-19 mm wide), mature pistillate spikes (14-27 mm wide) and the spike gap (4-33 mm long) are all intermediate in measurement to the parental species.

Distribution

Top of page

Because T. x glauca is often confused with its parents, adequately assessing its distribution is difficult. T. x glauca may be present throughout the entire sympatric range of its parental species, including most of Europe (Smith, 1987), although it is most frequently reported in North America. One parent, T. latifolia, is native to North America, Eurasia, and parts of Africa, and it appears to have been naturalized in Australia, and perhaps in South America (USDA-ARS, 2008). T. angustifolia appears to have a similar but slightly restricted distribution due to climatic constraints.). Smith (1987) reports that many or all South-American collections of T. angustifolia and T. latifolia (e.g. Crespo and Pérez-Moreau, 1967) may in fact represent other species or hybrids. Typha’s center of endemism is Eurasia (Smith, 1967).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

North America

CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-ManitobaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-New BrunswickPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-OntarioPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-QuebecPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-SaskatchewanPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-AlabamaPresent Invasive Hotchkiss and Dozier, 1949
-AlaskaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-ArkansasPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-CaliforniaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-ColoradoPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-ConnecticutPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-DelawarePresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-HawaiiPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-IllinoisPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-IndianaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-IowaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-KentuckyPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MainePresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MarylandPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MassachusettsPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MichiganPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MinnesotaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-MissouriPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-New HampshirePresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-New JerseyPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-New YorkPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-North CarolinaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-OhioPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-OregonPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-PennsylvaniaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-TennesseePresent Invasive Galatowitsch et al., 1999
-UtahPresent Invasive Cronquist et al., 1977
-VermontPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-VirginiaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-WashingtonPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-West VirginiaPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-WisconsinPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008
-WyomingPresent Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2008

Central America and Caribbean

GuatemalaPresentStandley and Steyermark, 1958

Europe

FinlandPresentNativeLuther, 1947
FrancePresent Not invasive Rothmaler, 1940
GermanyPresent Not invasive Weyer Kvan de, 1996Hausdulmener Fischteiche in Northrhine-Westphalia
NetherlandsPresentNativeOostroom and Reichgelt, 1962
Russian FederationPresentNativePapchenkov, 1993; Mavrodiev, 2000
-Central RussiaPresentNativePapchenkov, 1993; Mavrodiev, 2000Saratov, Tatarstan
SwedenPresentNativeAlm and Weimark, 1933
SwitzerlandPresentNativeKrattinger et al., 1979
UKPresentNativeLousley and Tutin, 1947

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

In North America, T. x glauca has expanded westward from the eastern coast along with T. angustifolia, one parental species; the other parent, T. latifolia, appears to have been historically widespread (Hotchkiss and Dozier, 1949). The lack of early colonial records and collections of T. angustifolia prompted speculation that this species had a European origin (Stuckey and Salamon, 1987). Pollen samples, however, indicate that both T. angustifolia and T. x glauca were present in a New York marsh at A.D. 1200 and 800, respectively (Pederson et al., 2005). Regardless of T. angustifolia’s origin, herbarium data from eastern North America suggest that it expanded westward since 1880, reaching the Midwestern United States by the 1920s, and the Great Plains and scattered western states by 1949 (Hotchkiss and Dozier, 1949; Smith, 1967; Galatowitsch et al., 1999; Shih and Finkelstein, 2008). As T. angustifolia expanded, T. x glauca was reported throughout the range of sympatry (Smith 1967). Shih and Finkelstein (2008) contend that T. latifolia has expanded concomitantly with T. angustifolia since the 1930s, but their data (based on herbarium specimen collection frequency) is inconclusive.

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

T. angustifolia appears to continue to expand in western North America (Galatowitsch et al., 1999), probably abetted by human-caused disturbance, road construction, and the application of deicing salts (Wilcox, 1982; Grace and Harrison, 1986; Smith, 1987). T. x glauca will likely spread concomitantly with T. angustifolia, since T. latifolia is already widespread. Smith (2000) argues that T. x glauca, and perhaps T. angustifolia, should be classified as noxious weeds in North America, but no such designation has been achieved. The potential for T. x glauca to become invasive on other continents (e.g. Europe, where both parental species are widely distributed) is unknown. Taxonomic confusion could lead to an under-representation of T. x glauca’s distribution, especially in places like Northern Africa, where both parental species are reported to be present. Other aggressive Typha species (e.g. T. domingensis) are likely to be more problematic as invaders in tropical and sub-tropical climates.

Habitat

Top of page

T. x glauca can invade most wetland community types (including marsh, sedge meadow, shrub- carr, fen, lacustrine and riparian wetlands), as well as anthropogenic habitats where soil is periodically flooded (roadside ditches, irrigation canals, stormwater retention basins). T. latifolia is the only Typha species traditionally associated with undisturbed wetlands of Midwestern North America, while T. angustifolia is more prevalent in disturbed, saline, or artificial wetland habitats (Smith, 1967; Grace and Harrison, 1986). T. angustifolia is more tolerant of deeper water (> 15 cm) and saline soil than is T. latifolia, while T. x glauca tolerates a variety of water depths and salinity levels (McMillan, 1959; Grace and Wetzel, 1982). T. x glauca is most prevalent in areas with disturbed vegetation, bare soil, and altered hydroperiods. Typha spp. show a constitutive tolerance for soil and water contaminated by heavy metals (McNaughton et al., 1974).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Brackish
Inland saline areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Estuaries Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Lagoons Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial
Terrestrial – ManagedManaged grasslands (grazing systems) Secondary/tolerated habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Rail / roadsides Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalWetlands Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Littoral
Coastal areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Mud flats Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Intertidal zone Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Freshwater
Irrigation channels Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Lakes Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Reservoirs Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Ponds Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

T. angustifolia reduced the growth of mature Bulboschoenus fluviatilis (Torrey) Sojak by producing allelopathic chemicals (Jarchow and Cook, 2009). This mechanism, along with increased competition for light and nutrients, could explain a widespread pattern of reduced wetland plant diversity (including Carex spp., Schoenoplectus spp., and forbs) after T. x glauca invasion (Boers et al., 2007; Frieswyk and Zedler, 2007).

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

Chromosome number (2n)=30, corresponding to that of both parents (Smith, 1967). Molecular and morphological characters suggest that T. x glauca is predominantly an F1 hybrid between T. angustifolia and T. latifolia, the former normally acting as the pistillate parent (Smith, 1967; Kuehn et al., 1999). Advanced-generation hybrids and back-crosses have been documented, but have probably been over-reported because of wide morphological variation within F1 hybrids. F2 hybrids have shown developmental problems (Smith, 1967), and isozyme studies (Lee, 1975; Sharitz et al., 1980) do not rigorously document introgression (Kuehn et al. 1999). However, Marburger et al. (2007) have more recent evidence for hybrid swarms, and suggest that pure T. latifolia is in danger of extirpation in some regions. 

Reproductive Biology

T. x glauca is protogynous, self-compatible, and does not show apomixis (Smith, 1967). Pollenrequires strong winds for dispersal, and can travel distances of at least one km. Despite copious pollen production, self-pollination appears to exceed out-crossing even in dense stands (Krattinger, 1975). Seed germination rates vary greatly among populations (McNaughton, 1966; Smith, 1967). T. x glauca pollen is often aborted, and seeds normally have lower viability (0 - 50%) than those from either parental species (Smith, 1967). Plants established from seed can flower by the second year, and each inflorescence can produce 20,000–700,000 fruits (Marsh, 1962; Yeo, 1964). Seeds germinate on moist or submerged soil, promoted by light and hypoxia (Sifton, 1959; Bedish, 1967; van der Valk and Davis, 1978b). In an extreme case, T. latifolia germinated and grew 75 cm to the water surface (Yeo, 1964). When dry and brittle, entire female spikes sometimes fall to the water surface, providing a floating substrate for germination of attached seeds (Hall, 2008). Exposure to light dramatically increases germination, although seeds germinate at low percentages in the dark, especially under fluctuating temperature regimes (Sifton, 1959). Salinity (2% NaCl) can inhibit germination of all three taxa (McMillan, 1959). Seeds rarely germinate under established vegetation, and Typha might produce auto-allelopathic chemicals that inhibit the germination and growth of its own seeds, although data are not conclusive (McNaughton, 1968; Grace, 1983). Typha germinated less (van der Valk and Davis, 1976) and produced less biomass (Hall, 2008) in its own soil relative to soil dominated by other wetland plants. In natural areas not disturbed by humans, disturbance and herbivory by Ondatra zibethicus (muskrats) and Branta canadensis (geese) could facilitate seedling establishment (Svengsouk and Mitsch, 2001).

Lateral rhizomes facilitate rapid vegetative expansion after seedling establishment. Individual T. latifolia clones can span > 60 m (Krattinger, 1983), and T. x glauca has been documented to spread laterally at 1 - 8 m/year (McDonald, 1951; Boers, 2006; Hall, 2008).         

Physiology and Phenology

Phenology shows ecotypic variation, and northern populations flower earlier than southern counterparts (McNaughton, 1966). T. angustifolia generally flowers earlier than T. latifolia (Grace and Harrison, 1986). In Wisconsin, USA, leaves of T. x glauca begin growing in April, flowers become fertile throughout July and August, and leaves senesce in August and September. Hibernating buds produced in the fall rapidly emerge in spring, fuelled by a rhizome carbohydrate subsidy (Gustafson, 1976; Linde et al., 1976; Fiala, 1978). Grace and Harrison (1986) contend that high rhizome carbohydrate supplies promote ramets to flower rather than to remain vegetative, but drought stress could also promote flowering (Hall, 2008). T. latifolia attains maximum leaf biomass in late summer, when rhizome biomass is lowest. By autumn, leaf carbohydrates have been translocated to rhizomes, and rhizome carbohydrate storage is maximized (Gustafson, 1976; Linde et al., 1976). A monotype of Typha spp. produced 700 kg/ha dry matter of biomass (Apfelbaum, 1985), and production has ranged from 1000-2300 g/m2/year (van der Valk and Davis 1978a). Rhizomes in T. latifolia die after producing flowering ramets, but survive in T. angustifolia (Grace and Harrison, 1986). T. latifolia formed most new ramets during summer, whereas T. angustifolia formed most new ramets (hibernating buds) in autumn in a Czech marsh (Fiala, 1978). T. latifolia allocates more biomass to leaves and lateral rhizomes, while T. angustifolia invests more biomass in sexual reproduction and rhizome storage (Grace and Harrison, 1986). T. x glauca uses both of these strategies and produces greater ramet density than either parent (Marsh, 1962). Leaves contain aerenchyma cells that conduct oxygen to underwater tissues, when flooded (Sale and Wetzel, 1983). 

Nutrition

T. x glauca thrives under high nutrient loads, although the relative importance of nitrogen and phosphorus is unclear. Experimental nutrient additions doubled the growth of T. latifolia and T. x glauca, while co-occuring sedges (Schoenoplectus and Carex spp.) did not immediately respond (Svengsouk and Mitsch, 2001; Woo and Zedler, 2002). T. latifolia, however, did not reduce Carex stricta Lam. when grown under high nutrient levels in microcosms (Wetzel and van der Valk, 1998), and when fertilized with nitrogen alone, T. x glauca did not suppress other plants in a short-duration mesocosm experiment (Green and Galatowitsch, 2001). Nitrogen and phosphorus appeared to co-limit T. latifolia when it was grown in mesocosms, whereas in the field, T. latifolia increased along a gradient of increasing phosphorus (Svengsouk and Mitsch, 2001). T. x glauca required both nitrogen and phosphorus for growth in a greenhouse experiment, but adding a higher proportion of phosphorus stimulated growth regardless of nutrient concentration (Woo and Zedler, 2002). Prolonged flooding appeared to increase phosphorus availability and stimulate growth of T. x glauca through the process of “internal eutrophication” (Boers and Zedler, 2008). This mechanism could explain the frequent correlation between prolonged hydroperiods and Typha expansion (Wilcox et al., 1985; Boers et al., 2007). Expansion of the congener T. domingensis correlated with increased phosphorus, and phosphorus appeared to limit growth at a variety of field sites across Florida and the Yucatán peninsula (Koch and Reddy, 1992; Urban et al., 1993; Rejmankova et al., 1996). 

Associations

In undisturbed North American wetlands, T. latifolia often grows sparsely with sedges (Carex spp. and Schoenoplectus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp. and Eleocharis spp.), shrubs (Cornus spp. and Salix spp.) and forbs (Curtis, 1959). In disturbed and eutrophic wetlands, T. x glauca tends to form monotypes that replace these species, including its parents, while yielding to the invasive grass Phalaris arundinacea L. in drier areas. However, T. x glauca’s invasive growth may be dependent on eutrophic conditions and altered hydroperiods. In a nutrient-poor groundwater-fed fen, T. x glauca spread over a 20-year period but remained sparse, and never dominated the highly diverse plant community (Q Carpenter, University of Wisconsin, USA, personal communication, 2008).
 
Environmental Requirements

T. latifolia tolerates an extremely broad climatic spectrum, surviving winter minimums of -34°C in central Alaska as well as thriving in the tropics, and ranging in altitude from sea level to 2000 m (Smith, 1967; Grace and Harrison, 1986). T. angustifolia and T. x glauca, in contrast, might be limited where minimum temperatures are less than -13°C, but they can occupy a similar altitudinal range (0-1800 m). T. latifolia and T. angustifolia are more competitive in shallow < 15 cm) and deeper water, respectively (Grace and Wetzel, 1982), while T. x glauca appears to tolerate widely variable hydroperiods (Frieswyk and Zedler, 2007). T. x glauca can produce rhizomes extending 1 - 2 m below the soil surface, a trait that could increase drought tolerance (SG Smith, University of Wisconsin, USA, personal communication). T. x glauca also survives prolonged inundation. In a marsh flooded under 60 cm of water for 5 years, T. x glauca expanded while T. latifolia decreased (Harris and Marshall, 1963). Seedlings can tolerate anaerobic conditions. Mature plants, however, are intolerant of anaerobic conditions created when leaves are severed below water (Sale and Wetzel, 1983).

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
BS - Steppe climate Tolerated > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate Preferred Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter Preferred Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)
Ds - Continental climate with dry summer Preferred Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
51

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) -13 0

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Archips Herbivore Inflorescence not specific Grace and Harrison, 1986
Bellura obliqua Herbivore Leaves/Stems not specific Grace and Harrison, 1986
Calendra pertinax Herbivore Growing point not specific Grace and Harrison, 1986
Dicymolomia julianalis Herbivore Inflorescence not specific Grace and Harrison, 1986
Nonagria Herbivore Leaves/Stems not specific Grace and Harrison, 1986

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page
A variety of insects feed on Typha. Lepidopteran larvae often inhabit inflorescences, while noctuid caterpillars and coleoptera attack leaves, stalks, and sometimes rhizomes (Grace and Harrison, 1986). Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) can eliminate entire stands of Typha through herbivory (Kadlec et al., 2007).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)

Typha
’s tiny seeds (1-2 mm long) are contained in fruits attached to pistil hairs, and are often dispersed by the wind. Spikes do not shed fruits until they have dried (Krattinger, 1975), often delaying dispersal until many months after seed maturation. The entire spike sometimes collapses in place. The spread of T. angustifolia might have been facilitated by highway construction, since the species thrives in roadside ditches (Grace and Harrison, 1986) and could rapidly colonize this continuous habitat by wind dispersal. New clones can also establish from rhizome fragments carried by water currents.  

Vector Transmission (Biotic)


When the fruit is moistened it releases the seed, which has a pointed end that can become embedded in fish scales (Krattinger, 1975). Also, pistil hairs (with attached fruits) adhere to the clothing of fieldworkers, and could attach to animals as well (S Hall, University of Wisconsin, USA, personal communication, 2008). Mud with embedded seeds readily sticks to humans, livestock, birds, and agricultural implements (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).  

Accidental Introduction


T
. latifolia, appears to have been introduced to Australia (Finlayson et al., 1983), while T. latifolia and T. angustifolia might have been introduced to South America (USDA-ARS, 2008). Introductions of T. x glauca outside North America and Europe have not been documented 

Intentional Introduction


Indigenous people in the Northwestern United States propagated T. latifolia using rhizome fragments (Turner and Peacock, 2005). T. latifolia (and perhaps T. angustifolia) are planted in landscaped ponds and water treatment wetlands, where they have an opportunity to hybridize (Boers et al., 2007), but there are no reports of intentionally created hybrids.

 

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Negative
Environment (generally) Negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

Dense T. x glauca monotypes decrease the abundance of some economically important waterfowl species, while they benefit the red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus, a crop predator (Linz et al., 1996; Leitch et al., 1997).

Environmental Impact

Top of page Impact on Habitats

In arid climates Typha spp. can deplete water supplies through excessive evapotranspiration (Morton, 1975). T. x glauca appears to alter soil microbial community structure, leading to increased nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and lower water quality (Angeloni et al., 2006). T. x glauca appears to dramatically increase primary productivity and organic matter accumulation relative to the shorter-statured graminoids that it typically replaces (Woo and Zedler, 2002; Angeloni et al., 2006).

Impact on Biodiversity


T
. x glauca can reduce diversity of plants, insects, and birds by forming dense, monotypic stands in natural wetland communities. Plant species richness declined precipitously as T. x glauca cover increased in wetlands of the Midwestern United States, including Great Lakes estuaries, constructed wetlands, sedge meadows, and marshes (Frieswyk and Zedler, 2006; Boers et al., 2007; Hall, 2008). Depletion of seed bank diversity after T. x glauca invasion suggests a loss of resilience (Frieswyk and Zedler, 2006). Dense cover by T. x glauca also reduces invertebrate density and waterfowl habitat (Linz et al., 1999).

 

Social Impact

Top of page

Typha invasion reduces opportunities for waterfowl hunting and viewing, and decreases the aesthetic value of natural areas by lowering biodiversity.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
  • Long lived
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
  • Reproduces asexually
  • Has high genetic variability
Impact outcomes
  • Altered trophic level
  • Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Modification of hydrology
  • Modification of natural benthic communities
  • Modification of nutrient regime
  • Modification of successional patterns
  • Monoculture formation
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
  • Allelopathic
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition - shading
  • Hybridization
  • Rapid growth
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page Economic Value

T
. latifolia and T. angustifolia leaves are used for weaving, and most parts of the plant (rhizomes, buds, young shoots, female inflorescences, seeds, and pollen) were eaten by indigenous Americans and Europeans (Morton, 1975). Rhizomes contain up to 80% starch by dry weight, and pollen is protein-rich. Presumably, T. x glauca has similar potential uses. However, several cases of poisoning have been attributed to T. angustifolia and T. latifolia, and the congener T. domingensis produces a toxic oil Typha should not be harvested for food where water is contaminated, due to Typha’s propensity to accumulate heavy metals and other toxins. High productivity and resilience to harvest make T. x glauca an attractive species for biofuel production (Garver et al., 1988).

Social Benefit


T
. x glauca could provide valuable food, raw materials, wastewater treatment, and industrial-site remediation.

Environmental Services


Typha
spp. can improve water quality in wetlands managed for wastewater treatment, by increasing denitrification (Bachand and Horne, 2000; Martin et al., 2003). Periodic leaf harvesting can remove accumulated nitrogen and phosphorus (Toet et al., 2005). It is unclear, however, if Typha spp. improves water quality more than other wetland plants. T. x glauca actually increased sediment nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations when it invaded a freshwater marsh (Angeloni et al., 2006). T. x glauca might be most appropriate for remediating industrial sites, because of T. latifolia’s constitutive high tolerance to heavy metals (McNaughton et al., 1974).

 

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

T. domingensis is often sympatric with the parental species T. latifolia and T. angustifolia, and shares many characters with T. angustifolia (short, stiff compound pedicels, linear stigmas, presence of pistillate bracteoles, monad pollen). See Description section for characteristics of parent and hybrid. T. domingensis is distinguished by: light brown pistillate bracteoles similar in length to pistil hairs; normally colourless pistil hair apices; light-brown to cinnamon-coloured pistillate spike at anthesis, darkening slightly at maturity; leaf sheathes and adjacent blades with mucilage glands on the adaxial surface. Leaves are 7-18 mm wide, mature pistillate spikes are 13-26 mm wide, and the pistillate and staminate spikes are separated by 0-8 cm.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.

Prevention

Prevention is difficult given Typha’s prolific seed production. Reducing anthropogenic disturbance of soil and vegetation could reduce establishment, but disturbance by animals can still create germination sites, even in protected wetlands. Maintaining natural hydrology and reducing nutrient loads could reduce the density and spread of T. x glauca after its establishment (Boers, 2006). Maintaining consistently high water levels (> 1.2 m) in managed wetlands could prevent establishment from seed (Ivens, 1967). 

Eradication

Most management of T. x glauca has focused on periodic density reductions to benefit waterfowl, rather than on permanent eradication (Apfelbaum, 1985). Seed banks often contain hundreds of viable seeds/m2 (van der Valk and Davis, 1978b). Eradication would require yearly surveillance to kill new clones as they establish. Targeting T. angustfolia would reduce the spread of T. x glauca, but T. latifolia is normally a desirable component of North American wetlands. 

Control

Physical/mechanical control

Burning, cutting, and grazing often reduce Typha spp. when followed by flooding. These methods remove leaf tissue that Typha requires to transport oxygen to underwater rhizomes. Deprived of oxygen, Typha respires anaerobically and accumulates ethanol as a toxic byproduct, causing mortality (Sale and Wetzel, 1983). High water levels are necessary to maintain Typha in an anaerobic environment after it re-sprouts. Water depths sufficient for complete mortality of Typha spp. after cutting have ranged from 26-80 cm, and experiments where water levels varied spatially showed increased re-growth in shallow water relative to deeper water (Shekhov, 1974; Beule and Hine, 1979; Murkin and Ward, 1980; Mallik and Wein, 1985; Ball, 1990). Cutting Typha while ramets are flowering and rhizome carbohydrate reserves are low reduces re-growth (Linde et al., 1976; Singh et al., 1976). Fires in flooded wetlands do not normally reduce Typha, probably because underwater leaf tissue is not damaged (Mallik and Wein, 1985; Grieco et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2005). In drained wetlands, fire can sometimes reduce Typha by damaging rhizomes directly (Mallik and Wein, 1985). Soil-burning fires can benefit Typha by increasing nutrient availability (Newman et al., 1998; Smith and Newman, 2001), but post-fire nutrient pulses might only increase growth temporarily (Ponzio et al., 2004). Successive water-level drawdowns could favour sedges (e.g. Eleocharis spp.) over Typha, as occurred in a T. domingensis marsh in Brazil (Palma-Silva et al., 2005). Draining and bulldozing provides destructive but effective control (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Sheep grazing decreased T. domingensis density in the soil seed bank (Nicol et al. 2007). 

Biological control

Muskrats can decimate Typha (Kadlec et al., 2007), and herbivory by waterfowl and muskrats appears to increase following fire (Smith and Kadlec, 1985b). 

Chemical control

Many herbicides reduce Typha in the short-term, including glyphosate, amitrole-T, amino-triazole, or MCPA (Annen, 2007). These are effectively applied during flowering or when leaves begin to senesce (Beule and Hine 1979; Apfelbaum, 1985).

Control by utilization

Harvesting Typha leaves can reduce re-growth, if followed by flooding. 

Monitoring and Surveillance

Dense Typha monotypes are visible on aerial photos and their expansion can be tracked over time (Boers, 2006; Frieswyk and Zedler, 2007; Hall, 2008).

Ecosystem Restoration

Restoring natural hydrology, preventing prolonged flooding, and reducing nutrient loads should minimize Typha’s spread and ameliorate effects on diversity. In low-nutrient fens fed by groundwater, T. x glauca does not dominate or reduce plant diversity (Q Carpenter, University of Wisconsin, USA, personal communication, 2008).

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

The relative invasiveness of T. latifolia, T. angustifolia, and T. x glauca are often debated. Some argue that both parental species are invasive (Shih and Finkelstein, 2008). Other research suggests that T. latifolia is benign, and that T. x glauca is replacing its parental genotypes as well as other wetland species (Smith, 1987; Frieswyk and Zedler, 2007; Marburger et al., 2007). Mis-identifications could contribute to the debate over the relative invasiveness of T. latifolia versus T. x glauca. To what extent nitrogen and phosphorus limit growth is still unclear. Also, it is unclear what factors constrain the restoration of diverse wetland communities from T. x glauca monotypes (Boers et al., 2007; Hall, 2008).

References

Top of page

Alm CG; Weimark H, 1933. [English title not available]. (Typha angustifolia L. X latifolia L. funnen i Skane.) Bot. Not, 1933:279-284.

Angeloni NL; Jankowski KJ; Tuchman NC; Kelly JJ, 2006. Effects of an invasive cattail species (Typha × glauca) on sediment nitrogen and microbial community composition in a freshwater wetland. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 263(1):86-92. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/fml

Annen C, 2007. Invasive species: plants. Literature review. Madison, USA: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/plants.asp

Apfelbaum SI, 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journal, 5(3):9-17. Natural Areas Journal

Bachand PAM; Horne AJ, 2000. Denitrification in constructed free-water surface wetlands: II. Effects of vegetation and temperature. Ecological Engineering., 17-32.

Ball JP, 1990. Influence of subsequent flooding depth on cattail control by burning and mowing. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 28:32-36.

Bedish JW, 1967. Cattail moisture requirements and their significance to marsh management. The American Midland Naturalist, 78(2):288-300.

Beule JD; Hine RL, 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. DNR Technical Bulletin 112.

Boers AM, 2006. The effects of stabilized water levels on invasion by hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca). Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Boers AM; Veltman RD; Zedler JB, 2007. Typha x glauca dominance and extended hydroperiod constrain restoration of wetland diversity. Ecological Engineering, 29:232-244.

Boers AM; Zedler JB, 2008. Stabilized water levels and Typha invasiveness. Wetlands, 28:676-685.

Crespo S; Pérez-Moreau RL, 1967. Revision of the genus Typha in Argentina. (Revisión del género Typha en la Argentina) Darwiniana, 14:413-429.

Cronquist A; Holmgren AH; Holmgren NH; Reveal JL; Holmgren PK, 1977. Intermountain flora. Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Volume six. The monocotyledons. New York, USA: Columbia University., 584pp.

CURTIS JT, 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, ix + 657 pp.

Dykjová D, 1978. Plant growth and estimates of production: Intraspecific and clonal variability and its importance for production estimates. Structure and functioning. In: Pond littoral ecosystems [ed. by Dykjov´ D, Kvet J] Berlin, Germany: Springer, 159-163.

Esnault MA; Lahrer F, 1982. [English title not available]. (Interprétation de populations de Typha par l'analyse numerique des données morphologiques et par l'étude des formes isofonctionnelles de diverses enzymes) Candolea, 37:633-648.

Fiala K, 1978. Underground organs of Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia, their growth, propagation and production. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Academiae Scientiarum Bohemoslovacae Brno., 44 pp.

Finlayson CM; Roberts J; Chick AJ; Sale PJM, 1983. The biology of Australian weeds. II. Typha domingensis Pers. and Typha orientalis Presl. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, 49(1):3-10.

Frieswyk CB; Zedler JB, 2006. Do seed banks confer resilience to coastal wetlands invaded by Typha × glauca? Canadian Journal of Botany, 84(12):1882-1893. http://canjbot.nrc.ca

Frieswyk CB; Zedler JB, 2007. Vegetation change in great lakes coastal wetlands: deviation from the historical cycle. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33:366-380.

Galatowitsch SM; Anderson NO; Ascher PD, 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. In: Wetlands, 733-755.

Garver EG; Dubbe DR; Pratt DC, 1988. Seasonal patterns in accumulation and partitioning of biomass and macronutrients in Typha spp. Aquatic Botany, 32(1-2):115-127.

Grace JB, 1983. Autotoxic inhibition of seed germination by Typha latifolia: an evaluation. Oecologia, 59:366-369.

Grace JB; Harrison JS, 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 73. Typha latifolia L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha x glauca Godr. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 66(2):361-379

Grace JB; Wetzel RG, 1982. Niche differentiation between two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Canadian Journal of Botany, 60(1):46-57.

Green EK; Galatowitsch SM, 2001. Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea and Typha ×glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany, 79(2):170-178.

Grieco JP; Vogtsberger RC; Achee NL; Vanzie E; Andre RG; Roberts DR; Rejmankova E, 2005. Evaluation of habitat management strategies for the reduction of malaria vectors in northern Belize. Journal of Vector Ecology, 30(2):235-243.

Gustafson TD, 1976. Production, photosynthesis, and the storage and utilization of reserves in a natural stand of Typha latifolia L. Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin.

Hall SJ, 2008. Harvesting diversity after cattail invasion: prospects for wetland restoration. Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin.

Harris SW; Marshall WH, 1963. Ecology of water-level manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology, 44(2):331-343.

Hotchkiss N; Dozier HL, 1949. Taxonomy and distribution of N. American cat-tails. American Midland Naturalist, 41(1):237-254.

IVENS GW, 1967. East African weeds and their control. Oxford University Press, Nairobi, xiv + 244 pp.

Jarchow ME; Cook BJ, 2009. Allelopathy as a mechanism for the invasion of Typha angustifolia. Plant Ecology.

Kadlec RH; Pries J; Mustard H, 2007. Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) in treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering, 29(2):143-153. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFB-4MJJC3W-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2007&_rdoc=4&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236006%232007%23999709997%23640835%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6006&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=11&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ff54cb27d69327ec3bc751291cb15785

Koch MS; Reddy KR, 1992. Distribution of soil and plant nutrients along a trophic gradient in the Florida Everglades. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 56(5):1492-1499.

Kostecke RM; Smith LM; Hands HM, 2005. Macroinvertebrate response to cattail management at Cheyenne Bottoms, Kansas, USA. Wetlands, 25(3):758-763.

Krattinger K, 1975. Genetic mobility in Typha. Aquatic Botany, 1(1):57-70

Krattinger K, 1983. Estimation of size and number of individual plants within populations of Typha latifolia L. using isoelectrofocusing (IEF). Aquatic Botany, 15(3):241-247.

Krattinger K; Rast D; Karesh H, 1979. Analysis of pollen proteins of Typha species in relation to identification of hybrids. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 7:125-128.

Kuehn MM; Minor JE; White BN, 1999. An examination of hybridization between the cattail species Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia using random amplified polymorphic DNA and chloroplast DNA markers. Molecular Ecology, 81:981-1990.

Kuehn MM; White BN, 1999. Morphological analysis of genetically identified cattails Typha latifolia, Typha angustifolia, and Typha × glauca. Canadian Journal of Botany, 77(6):906-912.

Lee D, 1975. Population variation and introgression in North American Typha. Taxon, 24:633-641.

Lee MAB; Ponzio KJ; Miller SJ, 2005. Response of willow (Salix caroliniana Michx.) in a floodplain marsh to a growing season prescribed fire. Natural Areas Journal, 25(3):239-245.

Leitch JA; Linz GM; Baltezore JF, 1997. Economics of cattail (Typha spp.) control to reduce blackbirds damage to sunflower. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 65(2):141-149.

Linde AF; Janish T; Smith D, 1976. Cattail [Typha spp.] - the significance of its growth, phenology and carbohydrate storage to its control and management. Technical Bulletin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources., 27 pp.

Linz GM; Bleier WJ; Overland JD; Homan HJ, 1999. Response of invertebrates to glyphosate-induced habitat alterations in wetlands. Wetlands, 19(1):220-227.

Linz GM; Blixt DC; Bergman DL; Bleier WJ, 1996. Response of ducks to glyphosate-induced habitat alterations in wetlands. Wetlands, 16(1):38-44.

Lousley JE; Tutin TG, 1947. Typha angustifolia x latifolia L. Report of the Botanical Society and Exchange Club, 13:173-174.

Luther H, 1947. [English title not available]. (Typha angustifolia X latifolia L. (T. x glauca Godr.) Ostfennoskandien) Memoranda Societatis Flora et Fauna Fennica, 23:66-75.

Mallik AU; Wein RW, 1985. Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 64:2136-2143.

Marburger J; Travis S; Windels S, 2007. Botany and Plant Biology Joint Congress: Chicago, USA, 7-11 July 2007.

Marsh LC, 1962. Studies in the genus Typha. Syracuse, USA: Syracuse University.

Martin J; Hofherr E; Quigley MF, 2003. Effects of Typha latifolia transpiration and harvesting on nitrate concentrations in surface water of wetland microcosms. Wetlands, 23(4):835-844.

Mavrodiev EV, 2000. Typha X smirnovii E. Mavrodiev (T. latifolia L. str. X T. laxmannii Lepechin) and some other cattails from Russian Southeast. Byulleten' Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody Otdel Biologicheskii, 105(4):65-69.

McDonald ME, 1951. The ecology of the Pointe Mouillée marsh, Michigan, with special reference to the biology of cat-tail (Typha). Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan.

McMILLAN C, 1959. Salt tolerance within a Typha population. American Journal of Botany, 46(7):521-6.

McNAUGHTON SJ, 1966. Ecotype function of the Typha community-type. Ecological Monographs, 36(4):297-325.

McNAUGHTON SJ, 1968. Autotoxic feedback in relation to germination and seedling growth in Typha latifolia. Ecology, 49(2):367-9.

McNaughton SJ; Folsom TC; Lee T; Park F; Price C; Roeder D; Schmitz J; Stockwell C, 1974. Heavy metal tolerance in Typha latifolia without the evolution of tolerant races. Ecology, 55(5):1163-1165.

Morton JF, 1975. Cattails (typha spp.) - weed problem or potential crop? Economic Botany, 29(1):7-29.

Murkin HR; Ward P, 1980. Early spring cutting to control cattail in a northern marsh. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 8(3):254.

Newman S; Schuette J; Grace JB; Rutchey K; Fontaine T; Reddy KR; Pietrucha M, 1998. Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany, 60(3):265-280.

Nicol J; Muston S; D'Santos P; McCarthy B; Zukowski S, 2007. Impact of sheep grazing on the soil seed bank of a managed ephemeral wetland: implications for management. Australian Journal of Botany, 55(2):103-109. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?nid/66

Oostroom SJvan; Reichgelt TJ, 1962. Typha angustifolia L. X T. latifolia L. in Netherland. Gorteria, 1:90-92.

Palma-Silva C; Albertoni EF; Esteves FA, 2005. Clonal growth of Typha domingensis Pers., subject to drawdowns and interference of Eleocharis mutata (L.) Roem et. Shult. in a tropical coastal lagoon (Brazil). Wetlands Ecology and Management, 13:191-198.

Papchenkov VG, 1993. On the new and rare species of the Tatarstan flora. Botanicheskii Zhurnal, 78(9):73-79.

Parsons WT; Cuthbertson EG, 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press, 692 pp.

Pederson DC; Peteet DM; Kurdyla D; Guilderson T, 2005. Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age, and European impact on the environment during the last millennium in the lower Hudson Valley, New York, USA. Quaternary Research, 63(3):238-249. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-4FJTP77-1&_user=10&_handle=V-WA-A-W-AY-MsSAYVA-UUW-U-AAWCVUWEVE-AAWWEYBDVE-WCDWAACZB-AY-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=4&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236995%232005%23999369996%23593814!&_cdi=6995&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a9f6b3ee0ddd45223093acf3dbdc2e01

Ponzio KJ; Miller SJ; Lee MA, 2004. Long-term effects of prescribed fire on Cladium jamaicense Crantz and Typha domingensis Pers. densities. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 12(2):123-133.

Rejmankova E; Pope KO; Post R; Maltby E, 1996. Herbaceous wetlands of the Yucatan Peninsula: communities at extreme ends of environmental gradients. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie, 81:223-252.

Rothmaler W, 1940. [English title not available]. (De flora occidentali. I. Typha) Repertorum Specierum Novarum Regni Vegetabilis, 49:169-171.

Sale PJM; Wetzel RG, 1983. Growth and metabolism of Typha species in relation to cutting treatments. Aquatic Botany, 15(4):321-334.

Sharitz RR; Wineriter SA; Smith MH; Lin EH, 1980. Comparison of isozymes among Typha species in the eastern United States. American Journal of Botany, 67(9):1297-1303

Shekhov AG, 1974. Effect of cutting time on renewal of stands of reed and cattail. Hydrobiological Journal, 10:45-48.

Shih JG; Finkelstein SA, 2008. Range dynamics and invasive tendencies in Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia in eastern North America derived from herbarium and pollen records. Wetlands, 28(1):1-16.

SIFTON HB, 1959. The germination of light-sensitive seeds of Typha latifolia L. Canadian Journal of Botany, 37(4):719-39.

Singh SP; Pahuja SS; Moolani MK, 1976. Cultural control of Typha angustata at different stages of growth. In: Aquatic weeds in S.E. Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Seminar on Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi, 1973 The Hague, Netherlands: W. Junk., 245-247.

Smith LM; Kadlec JA, 1985. Comparisons of prescribed burning and cutting of Utah marsh plants. Great Basin Naturalist, 45(3):462-466.

Smith LM; Kadlec JA, 1985. Fire and herbivory in a Great Salt Lake marsh. Ecology, 66(1):259-265.

Smith RB; Breininger DR, 1995. Wading bird populations of the Kennedy Space Center. Bulletin of Marine Science, 57(1):230-236.

Smith SG, 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North American Typha (Typhaceae). American Midland Naturalist, 78(2):257-287.

Smith SG, 1987. Typha: Its taxonomy and the ecological significance of hybrids. Archiv fü Hydrobiologie, Beih. Ergebn. Limnol, 27:129-138.

Smith SG, 2000. Typhaceae. In: Flora of North America [ed. by Flora of North America Editorial Committee] New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 278-285.

Smith SM; Newman S, 2001. Growth of southern cattail (Typha domingensis Pers.) seedlings in response to fire-related soil transformations in the Northern Florida Everglades. Wetlands, 21(3):363-369.

Stace CA, 1975. Hybridization in the Flora of the British Isles. London, Britain: Academic Press.

Standley PC; Steyermark JA, 1958. Typhaceae. Feldiana Botany, 24(1):63-67. [Flora of Guatemala.]

Stuckey RL; Salamon DP, 1987. Typha angustifolia in North America: A foreigner masquerading as a native. Proceedings of the Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus, USA.

Svengsouk LJ; Mitsch WJ, 2001. Dynamics of mixtures of Typha latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani in nutrient-enrichment wetland experiments. American Midland Naturalist, 145(2):309-324.

Toet S; Bouwman M; Cevaal A; Verhoeven JTA, 2005. Nutrient removal through autumn harvest of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia shoots in relation to nutrient loading in a wetland system used for polishing sewage treatment plant effluent. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 40(6/7):1133-1156. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=107843

Turner NJ; Peacock S, 2005. Solving the perennial pardox: Ethnobotanical evidence for plant resource management on the northwest coast. In: Keeping it Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest Coast of North America [ed. by Deur D, Turner NJ] Seattle, USA: University of Washington Press, 101-150.

Urban NH; Davis SM; Aumen NG, 1993. Fluctuations in sawgrass and cattail densities in Everglades Water Conservation Area 2A under varying nutrient, hydrologic and fire regimes. Aquatic Botany, 46(3-4):203-223.

USDA-ARS, 2008. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx

USDA-NRCS, 2008. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Valk AGvan der; Davis CB, 1976. The seed banks of prairie glacial marshes. Canadian Journal of Botany, 54:1832-1838.

Valk AGvan der; Davis CB, 1978. The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology, 59(2):322-335.

Valk van der AG; Davis CB, 1978. Primary production of prairie glacial marshes. In: Freshwater Wetlands, Ecological Processes, and Management Potential [ed. by Good RE, Whigham DF, Simpson RL] New York, USA: Academic, 21-37.

Wetzel PR; Valk AG van der, 1998. Effects of nutrient and soil moisture on competition between Carex stricta, Phalaris arundinacea, and Typha latifolia. Plant Ecology, 138(2):179-190.

Weyer Kvan de, 1996. Typha x glauca Godr. (Typha angustifolia L. x Typha latifolia L.) on the Hausduelmener Fischteichen (Westphalia). Floristische Rundbriefe, 30(2):91-93.

Wilcox DA, 1982. The effects of deicing salts on water chemistry and vegetation in Pinhook Bog, Indiana. West Lafayette, USA: Purdue University.

Wilcox DA; Apfelbaum SI; Hiebert RD, 1985. Cattail invasion of sedge meadows following hydrologic disturbance in the Cowles Bog wetland complex, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Wetlands, 4:115-128.

Woo I; Zedler JB, 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha × glauca? Wetlands, 22(3):509-521.

YEO RR, 1964. Life history of common cattail. Weeds, 12(4):284-8.

Contributors

Top of page

30/04/08 Original text by:

Steven Hall, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map