Typha angustifolia (lesser bulrush)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Habitat
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Water Tolerances
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Pathway Vectors
- Environmental Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses
- Uses List
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Links to Websites
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportPictures
Top of pageIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Typha angustifolia L.
Preferred Common Name
- lesser bulrush
International Common Names
- English: lesser reedmace; narrowleaf cattail
- Spanish: abea; espadaña; junco de la pasion
- French: massette a feuilles etroites
- Portuguese: taboa; tabua-estreita
Local Common Names
- Argentina: totora
- Australia: cumbungi
- Belgium: kleine Lisdodde
- Brazil: taboa
- Colombia: enea
- Dominican Republic: enea
- Germany: Schmalblaettriger Rohrkolben
- Indonesia: purun
- Italy: stiancia minore
- Japan: himegama; hime-gama
- Malaysia: banat
- Netherlands: kleine Lisdodde
- Philippines: balangot
- Thailand: kok chaang; thoup susi
- Uruguay: totora
- Venezuela: enea
- Vietnam: co nen; thuy huong
EPPO code
- TYHAN (Typha angustifolia)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageT. angustifolia is distributed throughout the temperate northern hemisphere, occurring in at least 56 countries. There is some dispute over its native distribution. The Kew Database regards the species as native to both the Palearctic and Nearctic but the USDA Plants Database gives its status in the USA as introduced. Most reports of problems come from Eurasia and North America. It is not listed (in 2007) as a noxious weed on either the US Federal, nor any state listing, although it is included in some state manuals for control of invasive plants (e.g. Wisconsin). It is a competitive species occurring in aquatic to wetland habitats, primarily considered a nuisance in North America where it invades and displaces other, less competitive, wetland and emergent species, causing loss of biodiversity. Otherwise, its impact is generally low, and often as part of a mixed community of native species causing overgrowth of drainage channels.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Monocotyledonae
- Order: Typhales
- Family: Typhaceae
- Genus: Typha
- Species: Typha angustifolia
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageThe taxonomy of Typhaceae is somewhat complex. Some authorities combine Typha angustifolia with Typha domingensis, under the former name, but both the USDA Plants Database, and the Kew Index separate the two species (Chambers et al., 2008), and only T. angustifolia, sensu stricto, is dealt with here. Some workers have suggested that T. angustifolia was early introduced from Europe into Atlantic Coastal North America and migrated westward (Stuckey and Salamon, 1987). In South America Fernández et al. (1990), consider T. domingensis to be a separate species, and isoenzyme studies by Sharitz et al. (1980) on North American material provide further evidence for this. At least eight other species are commonly recognized, although only three of these (Typha javanica, Typha orientalis and Typha elephantina are serious causes of weed problems (Sainty and Jacobs, 1988; Gopal, 1990).
Species of Typha are known to hybridize (Stace, 1975) and ecotype formation is common, particularly in Typha latifolia (Grace and Wetzel, 1983).
Description
Top of pageT. angustifolia is a slender perennial aquatic emergent plant, growing to 3 m tall, but usually smaller. It has branched creeping rhizomes, 2-4 cm in diameter, commonly 70 cm or even longer, with dense fibrous root masses occurring at the base of stems and at rhizome nodes. Stems are unbranched and round with long (60-80 cm), linear leaves, 3-12 mm wide and deep green. Leaves are strongly planoconvex, numbering <10 per stem, sheathing at the base, and commonly overtopping the inflorescence. The inflorescence is a thin, dense crowded cylindrical spike of male flowers (brown to yellowish) above a similar spike of female flowers (reddish to dark brown), with a gap of approximately 10 mm between the two. Very large numbers of small pendulous seeds, with a straight, narrow embryo are produced.
Distribution
Top of pageT. angustifolia is distributed throughout the temperate northern hemisphere, occurring in at least 56 countries (Holm et al., 1997; Chambers et al., 2008). There is some dispute over its native distribution. The Kew Database regards the species as native to both the Palearctic and Nearctic but the USDA Plants Database gives its status in the USA as introduced. Most reports of problems come from Eurasia and North America. It is not listed (in 2007) as a noxious weed on either the US Federal, nor any State listing, although it is included in some state manuals for control of invasive plants (e.g. Wisconsin: Hoffman and Kearns, 1997).
Anderson (1990) reported T. angustifolia as a weed species throughout the southwestern USA, whereas species of Typha also caused problems in the northwestern states. In general, with the exception of Florida, Typha weeds appear to cause fewer problems in the eastern USA (Steward, 1990).
According to the Kew Database, records from the following countries are highly likely to be T. domingensis: Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Belize, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela, Australia, Micronesia (K Murphy, University of Glasgow, UK, personal communication, 2007).
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe 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.
Last updated: 17 Dec 2021Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Algeria | Present | Native | |||||
Congo, Republic of the | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Egypt | Present | ||||||
Ghana | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Kenya | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Morocco | Present | ||||||
Mozambique | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Sudan | Present, Widespread | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Tanzania | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Uganda | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Asia |
|||||||
Afghanistan | Present | ||||||
Cambodia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
China | Present | Native | Manchuria and north-central China | ||||
-Inner Mongolia | Present | Native | |||||
-Jiangsu | Present | ||||||
-Shanxi | Present | ||||||
-Xinjiang | Present | Native | |||||
Georgia | Present | Native | Given in Kew database as 'Transcaucasus' | ||||
India | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Indonesia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Iran | Present | ||||||
Israel | Present | ||||||
Japan | Present | ||||||
Jordan | Present | ||||||
Kazakhstan | Present | Native | |||||
Laos | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Lebanon | Present | ||||||
Malaysia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Nepal | Present | ||||||
Philippines | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Singapore | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
South Korea | Present | ||||||
Sri Lanka | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Syria | Present | Native | |||||
Taiwan | Present | Native | Original citation: eFlorasorg (2009) | ||||
Tajikistan | Present | Native | |||||
Thailand | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Turkey | Present | ||||||
Uzbekistan | Present | Native | |||||
Vietnam | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Europe |
|||||||
Albania | Present | Native | |||||
Austria | Present | ||||||
Belarus | Present | Native | |||||
Belgium | Present | ||||||
Bulgaria | Present | ||||||
Czechoslovakia | Present | ||||||
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia | Present | ||||||
Denmark | Present | ||||||
Estonia | Present | Native | |||||
Finland | Present | Native | |||||
France | Present | ||||||
-Corsica | Present | Native | |||||
Germany | Present | ||||||
Greece | Present | ||||||
Hungary | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Ireland | Present | Native | |||||
Italy | Present, Widespread | ||||||
-Sardinia | Present | Native | |||||
-Sicily | Present | Native | |||||
Latvia | Present | Native | |||||
Lithuania | Present | Native | |||||
Netherlands | Present | ||||||
Norway | Present | ||||||
Poland | Present | ||||||
Portugal | Present | Native | |||||
Romania | Present | ||||||
Russia | Present | ||||||
-Siberia | Present | Native | |||||
Serbia | Present | Native | Drainage channels | ||||
Slovakia | Present | Ipel River | |||||
Spain | Present | Native | |||||
Sweden | Present | ||||||
Switzerland | Present | Native | |||||
Ukraine | Present | ||||||
-Crimea | Present | Native | |||||
United Kingdom | Present | ||||||
North America |
|||||||
Bahamas | Present | ||||||
Belize | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Bermuda | Present | ||||||
Canada | Present | ||||||
-British Columbia | Present | Native | |||||
-Manitoba | Present | Native | |||||
-New Brunswick | Present | Native | |||||
-Nova Scotia | Present | Native | |||||
-Ontario | Present | Native | |||||
-Prince Edward Island | Present | Native | |||||
-Quebec | Present | Native | |||||
-Saskatchewan | Present | Native | |||||
Costa Rica | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Cuba | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Dominican Republic | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Jamaica | Present | Black River wetlands: together with invasive T. domingensis | |||||
Mexico | Present | ||||||
Puerto Rico | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
United States | Present | ||||||
-Alabama | Present | ||||||
-Arizona | Present | ||||||
-Arkansas | Present | Native | |||||
-California | Present | ||||||
-Colorado | Present | ||||||
-Connecticut | Present | ||||||
-Delaware | Present | Native | |||||
-Florida | Present | Original citation: Steward (1990) | |||||
-Hawaii | Present | ||||||
-Idaho | Present | ||||||
-Illinois | Present | Native | |||||
-Indiana | Present | Native | |||||
-Iowa | Present | Native | |||||
-Kansas | Present | ||||||
-Kentucky | Present | Native | |||||
-Louisiana | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Maine | Present | Native | |||||
-Maryland | Present | Native | |||||
-Massachusetts | Present | Native | |||||
-Michigan | Present | ||||||
-Minnesota | Present | Native | |||||
-Missouri | Present | ||||||
-Montana | Present | ||||||
-Nebraska | Present | ||||||
-Nevada | Present | ||||||
-New Hampshire | Present | Native | |||||
-New Jersey | Present | Native | |||||
-New Mexico | Present | ||||||
-New York | Present | Native | |||||
-North Carolina | Present | Native | |||||
-North Dakota | Present | ||||||
-Ohio | Present | Native | |||||
-Oklahoma | Present | ||||||
-Oregon | Present | ||||||
-Pennsylvania | Present | Native | |||||
-Rhode Island | Present | Native | |||||
-South Carolina | Present | Native | |||||
-South Dakota | Present | ||||||
-Tennessee | Present | Native | |||||
-Texas | Present | ||||||
-Utah | Present | ||||||
-Vermont | Present | Native | |||||
-Virginia | Present | Native | |||||
-Washington | Present | ||||||
-West Virginia | Present | Native | |||||
-Wisconsin | Present | Native | |||||
-Wyoming | Present | ||||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Federated States of Micronesia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Fiji | Present | ||||||
South America |
|||||||
Argentina | Present, Widespread | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Bolivia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Brazil | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
-Sao Paulo | Present | ||||||
Chile | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Colombia | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Ecuador | Present, Widespread | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Peru | Present, Widespread | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Suriname | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis | |||||
Uruguay | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis; Original citation: Fernández et al. (1990) | |||||
Venezuela | Present | Highly likely to be T. domingensis |
Habitat
Top of pageT. angustifolia is a plant of temperate drainage and irrigation channels, associated reservoir and pond systems, navigation canals, and natural freshwater and wetland systems (lakes, rivers, ponds, topogenous and soligenous mires, fens and other marsh systems). Because of its clonal growth pattern and high competitive ability, it tends to form monodominant stands in suitable habitats for growth. The related species T. latifolia occupies very similar habitats, but tends to be replaced by T. angustifolia in waters >15 cm deep (Grace and Wetzel, 1982). The optimal water depth is 11-25 mm, and neither species survives in water deeper than 60-80 cm under normal conditions. Neither plant is very tolerant of salinity, and only slightly more than mildly brackish conditions are tolerated (e.g. Crain et al., 2004). Salinity levels of even 1% causes leaf damage to T. latifolia, although there is some North American evidence that T. angustifolia is slighter more salt-tolerant than T. latifolia (Fossett and Calhoun, 1952). These observations match the known distribution of the two species in the UK (Grime et al., 1988). The plants prefer a soil pH of >5.5, and are absent from more acidic soils.
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | ||||
Freshwater | ||||
Freshwater | Irrigation channels | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) | |
Freshwater | Lakes | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) | |
Freshwater | Reservoirs | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) | |
Freshwater | Rivers / streams | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) | |
Freshwater | Ponds | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) | |
Brackish | Estuaries | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageT. angustifolia is a competitive species (Grime et al., 1988), occurring in aquatic to wetland habitats. Weisner (1993) provided evidence to show that under productive (eutrophic) conditions, T. angustifolia has a competitive edge over T. latifolia, displacing the latter in the long term. More recent work has confirmed this, especially at high latitudes in North America, with precise outcomes dependent upon the balance of solar radiation and nutrient availability to competing populations of the two species (Tanaka et al., 2004). A high competitive ability for T. angustifolia has also been demonstrated in tidal wetlands of the northeastern United States (Farnsworth and Meyerson, 2003). However Mal et al. (1997) showed that over time, in Michigan wetlands, T. angustifolia was susceptible to competition from the strongly invasive (in N. America) Lythrum salicaria. Both T. latifolia and T. angustifolia have many similar adaptations, such as the possession of well-developed aerenchyma to supply air to root and rhizome systems growing in anoxic substrates (Tornbjerg et al., 1994). They also have an element of disturbance-tolerance in their survival strategy (Wilcox, 1995), typified by the emphasis on prolific seed production from wind- or self-pollinated inflorescences. The seed is easily wind- or water-transported within tiny fruits, the pericarp of which opens to release the seed after a period of contact with water (Krattinger, 1975). There is some seed dormancy, with germination being influenced by light, low oxygen and fluctuating temperatures.
Despite the importance to the plant of seed production, there is a considerable resource allocation to rhizome production, which provides an effective mechanism of clonal advance of up to 4 m/year (Fiala, 1971). Rhizome fragments are usually viable, float easily and provide an alternative method of regeneration of new clones to seed dispersal. A comprehensive overview of the biology of both T. angustifolia and T. latifolia is provided by Grace and Harrison (1986) and Holm et al. (1997).
Climate
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
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) | |
Df - Continental climate, wet all year | Tolerated | Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year) | |
Ds - Continental climate with dry summer | Tolerated | Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers) |
Water Tolerances
Top of pageParameter | Minimum Value | Maximum Value | Typical Value | Status | Life Stage | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Depth (m b.s.l.) | Optimum | <0.45 preferred; 0.75 tolerated | ||||
Salinity (part per thousand) | Optimum | <1 | ||||
Water pH (pH) | 3.7 | 8.5 | Optimum | |||
Water temperature (ºC temperature) | 5 | 20 | Optimum |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageIndigenous curculionid beetles (Yang and Zhang, 1988) and noctuid moth larvae, such as Bellura obliqua (Penko and Pratt, 1986) are known to consume Typha tissues. Species of Typha are among the aquatic weeds controlled by the introduction of cyprinid fishes into waterways around the world (Julien and Griffiths, 1998). The muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) has been reported as significantly reducing biomass of T. angustifolia in coastal marshes of New York (Connors et al., 2000).
Environmental Impact
Top of pageT. angustifolia is primarily considered a nuisance in North America where it invades and displaces other, less competitive, wetland and emergent species, causing loss of biodiversity. Otherwise, its impact is generally low, and often as part of a mixed community of native species causing overgrowth of drainage channels.
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Long lived
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Reproduces asexually
- Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Modification of hydrology
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Modification of successional patterns
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts tourism
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Hybridization
- Rapid growth
Uses
Top of pageSpecies of Typha have few uses for economic purposes, although the tubers are edible and have been used as food by indigenous peoples, notably in North America. Attempts have also been made to make paper with Typha pulp in the past, and Holm et al. (1991) state that a set of books published in 1765 with Typha paper still exists. They can be valuable components of constructed wetlands, for the purpose of wastewater cleanup, as they are efficient at accumulating heavy metals (Tjitrosoedirdjo and Sastroutomo, 1986), and also in removing nutrients and oils. Boyd (1970) calculated that Typha monocultures could (on a per hectare basis) remove up to 2600 kg of N and 400 kg of P per year from water, indicating a potentially high value for eutrophication control. Typha has been considered as a biomass crop for energy purposes (Yurukova and Kochev, 1993), but as in all aquatic plants its relatively high water content poses practical difficulties, particularly in harvesting.
Typha vegetation plays a very important role in wetland ecology at sites where it occurs, by providing food, shelter and nesting sites for waterfowl, fish and other wildlife (Dvorak, 1996), and has a role in wetland restoration projects (Dobberteen and Nickerson, 1991), although excessive growth can cause problems even in natural wetland systems, such as Spanish lagoons (Dies-Jambrino and Fernandez-Anero, 1997). T. angustifolia is of value for protecting banks from erosion in navigable river systems (Bonham, 1980).
Uses List
Top of pageEnvironmental
- Erosion control or dune stabilization
Medicinal, pharmaceutical
- Traditional/folklore
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue 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.
Control
Wade (1990) provides a brief overview of Typha control by physical means. Cutting and dredging are common approaches used worldwide; cutting shoots below the waterline 2-3 times per year leads to depletion of rhizome carbohydrate reserves and can reduce growth by >90% (Sale and Wetzel, 1983; Husak et al., 1986). However, cutting above the water surface is much less efficient: in Czech fishponds a cut at 180 cm above the substrate had hardly any impact on stands of T. angustifolia, whereas cutting off stems at 80 cm above the substrate resulted in a reduction of about 65% in rhizome biomass compared with untreated controls. Burning of Typha foliage is counter-productive, and may even simulate growth of above-ground biomass (Holm et al., 1991).
Chemical control
Species of Typha are susceptible to the standard herbicides affecting emergent narrow-leaved weeds at the normal dose ranges, particularly dalapon (Barrett and Robson, 1974) and glyphosate (Seddon, 1981; Barrett, 1985; Schimming et al., 1987; Messersmith et al., 1992). However, they also respond to other herbicides, for example, fluridone (Parka et al., 1978) applied as a foliar spray. Arsenovic (1986) reported promising results using both imazapyr and glufosinate. In drainage channels in Serbia, glyphosate at 2.4 and 2.8 a.i. kg ha-1, glufosinate ammonium at 2.0 a.i. kg ha-1 and sulfosate [glyphosate] at 2.4 a.i. kg ha-1 were reported as effective against mixed emergent stands including T. angustifolia (Konstantininovic and Meseldija, 2005).
In nature reserves, for example in Spain, glyphosate has been used to manage invasive growths of T. angustifolia and other emergent species (Dies-Jambrino and Fernandez-Anero, 1997).
Biological control
Relatively little work has been done on the biological control of species of Typha, probably because of the cosmopolitan occurrence of both T. angustifolia and T. latifolia, which makes classic biocontrol inappropriate (although not ruling out inundative methods). Species of Typha are listed as being target weeds of Aristichthys nobilis and Ctenopharyngodon idella, cyprinid fishes that have been released into waterways around the world (Julien and Griffiths, 1998). Certain curculionid beetles have been suggested as having potential (Yang and Zhang, 1988). Noctuid moth larvae, such as Bellura obliqua, are also known to infest Typha in parts of North America (Penko and Pratt, 1986), but have not been exploited as a means of practical control.
References
Top of pageAnderson L, 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in North America. (a) Aquatic weed problems and management in the western United States and Canada. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 371-391.
Bischof F, 1971. Weed control in rice in Gilan and Mazandaran. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology, 7:48-55.
Boyd CE, 1970. Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from polluted waters. Economic Botany, 24:95-103.
Britton NL, 1918. Flora of Bermuda. New York, USA: Charles Scribner's Sons. 585 pp.
Britton NL; Millspaugh CF, 1920. The Bahama Flora. New York, USA: NL Britton & CF Millspaugh.
Dethioux M, 1981. Relics of the Belgian Phragmition. Colloques Phytosociologiques, No.10:351-368.
Fernández OA; Sutton DL; Lallana VH; Sabbatini MR; Irigoyen JH, 1993. Aquatic weed problems and management in South and Central America. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 406-425.
Fiala K, 1971. Seasonal changes in the growth of clones of Typha latifolia. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica, 6:255-270.
Fossett N; Calhoun BM, 1952. Introgression between Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia. Evolution, 6:367-379.
Gopal B, 1990. Aquatic weed problems and management in Asia. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds: the Ecology and Management of Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 318-340.
Grace JB; Wetzel RG, 1983. Variations in growth and reproduction within populations of two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia. Oecologia, 53:258-263.
Krattinger K, 1975. Genetic mobility in Typha. Aquatic Botany, 1(1):57-70
Mehta I, 1979. Problem and control of Typha in the Chambal Command area. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 11:36-46.
Sainty GR; Jacobs SWL, 1988. Water Plants in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Australian Water Resources Council.
Soerjani M, 1980. Aquatic plant management in Indonesia. In: Furtado JI, ed. Tropical Ecology and Development. Proceedings 5th International Symposium on Tropical Ecology 1979. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: BIOTROP, 725-737.
Soerjani M; Parker C; Tjitrosemito S; Allen GE; Varshney CK; Mitchell DS; Pancho JV, 1976. Proceedings South-east Asian Workshop on Aquatic Weeds, BIOTROP Special Publication No. 1. Bogor, Indonesia: BIOTROP.
Stace CA, 1975. Introduction. In: Stace CA, ed. Hybridisation and the Flora of the British Isles. London, UK: Academic Press, 1-90.
Steward KK, 1993. Aquatic weed problems and management in the eastern United States. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford Scientific Press, 391-405.
Wade PM, 1990. Physical control of aquatic weeds. In: Pieterse AH, Murphy KJ, eds. Aquatic Weeds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 93-135.
Yang ZS; Zhang XQ, 1987. Sphenophorus sp. (Col.: Curculionidae), a potential biological control agent of the weed Typha angustifolia L. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 3(1):44.
Distribution References
Britton N L, 1918. Flora of Bermuda. New York, USA: C. Scribner's Sons.
Britton N L, Millspaugh C F, 1920. The Bahama Flora. New York, USA: NL Britton & CF Millspaugh.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
USDA-NRCS, 2007. The PLANTS Database., Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: USA National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Annotated Checklist of the Flora of Nepal | http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=110&taxon_id=200024679 | |
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway | https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6 | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS) | http://griis.org/ | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew | http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/wcsp/home.do | |
USDA-PLANTS | http://plants.usda.gov |
Contributors
Top of page29/10/2007 Updated by:
Kevin Murphy, University of Glasgow, IBLS - DEEB, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/