Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide


Typha latifolia
(broadleaf cattail)



Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail)


  • Last modified
  • 16 November 2021
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Typha latifolia
  • Preferred Common Name
  • broadleaf cattail
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Monocotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • T. latifolia is a cosmopolitan plant, occurring in wetlands through most temperature zones in North America, Europe and Asia, and many subtropical areas. It has also begun to invade the few regions where it is not native, e.g., Oceania, S...

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report


Top of page
TitleInflorescences of T. latifolia in field situation
CopyrightTomas Marquez/DuPont-Spain
Inflorescences of T. latifolia in field situationTomas Marquez/DuPont-Spain


Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Typha latifolia Linnaeus, 1753

Preferred Common Name

  • broadleaf cattail

Other Scientific Names

  • Massula latifolia (L.) Dulac, 1867
  • Typha crassa Raf., 1832
  • Typha elatior Raf., 1808

International Common Names

  • English: broad-leaved reedmace; bulrush; cattail; common cattail; common cattail; Cooper's reed; giant reed-mace; great cattail; soft-flag
  • Spanish: Espadana; Macio comun
  • French: Massette a larges feuilles
  • Portuguese: tabua-larga

Local Common Names

  • Australia: cumbungi
  • Canada: quenoille a feuilles larges
  • France: roseau des etangs
  • Germany: Breitblaettriger Rohrkolben
  • Italy: mazzasorda; stiancia d'acqua
  • Japan: gama
  • Netherlands: grote lisdodde
  • New Zealand: great reed mace
  • Portugal: tabua-larga
  • Spain: espadana comun; piriope; totora; tule espidilla
  • Sweden: bred kaveldun

EPPO code

  • TYHLA (Typha latifolia)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

T. latifolia is a cosmopolitan plant, occurring in wetlands through most temperature zones in North America, Europe and Asia, and many subtropical areas. It has also begun to invade the few regions where it is not native, e.g., Oceania, South-East Asia and the Hawaiian islands. It forms dense populations under suitable conditions, often as monocultures excluding other species of vegetation. Holm et al. (1997) designated it as one of the “World’s Worst Weeds”. T. latifolia can reduce rice production, impact wildlife populations and can alter nutrient cycles negatively. In New Zealand it is classed as an “unwanted organism” as part of the National Plant Pest Accord (Champion et al., 2007). Potential for rapid clonal growth and long persistence of T. latifolia in areas where it is native presents a warning against establishment of this species in areas where it is not native and would impact native biodiversity.

Taxonomic Tree

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

Typha latifolia was named by Linnaeus in 1753. A significant hybrid is formed between T. latifolia and T. angustifolia: T. x glauca. Hybridization has been noted in Europe, but studied more recently in North America where there is still some question about the extent of T. x glauca (Zhang et al., 2008). There are numerous local common names in English and other languages, but broadleaf cattail seems to be the most widely used name in the literature.


Top of page

T. latifolia is an erect thick-stemmed perennial with flowers consisting of cylindrical spikes, and stems 1-3 m tall. Linear, light green, flat leaves with a sheath at the base, extending to flowering spikes, 15-25 mm wide (Grace and Harris, 1986). Fibrous roots grow from rhizomes produced at base of leaves. Rhizomes are as long as 70 cm, 0.5-3 cm in diameter. Unisexual flowers include a pistillate portion below the staminate portion, forming a continuous spike 12-35 mm in diameter. Spike goes from green to brown as ripening occurs. Staminate flowers have hair-like bracteoles; bracteoles absent in pistillate flowers. Pollen grains formed in tetrads. Over 1000 flowers may be produced on one plant. Nutlike achenes about 1.5 mm long are derived from fertilized flowers. Seeds eventually break off generally by wind or water and are transported via long slender hairs (Hitchcock and Cronquist, 1973; Grace and Harrison, 1986; Welsh et al., 1987; Hickman, 1993; Larson, 1993; Pojar and MacKinnon, 1994).

Plant Type

Top of page
Seed propagated
Vegetatively propagated


Top of page

T. latifolia is a cosmopolitan species, with its native range encompassing large regions on all continents, except Antarctica, Africa and Oceania. T. latifolia is known to occur in at least seven African countries (USDA-ARS, 2010). It is recorded as having been established as a non-native species in six countries (Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines) and the USA state of Hawaii (Global Invasive Species Database, 2006). In New Zealand, it is not presently established but it has been found within the nursery/aquarium trade (Champion et al., 2007). T. latifolia is currently recorded as naturalized in low-lying wet areas on three of the Hawaiian islands: Kauai, Hawaii (the big island), Maui and Oahu (Wagner et al., 1999; HISP, 2008; PIER, 2009). Given the ability of T. latifolia to thrive in a broad array of temperature or semi-tropical habitats from the Arctic circle to 30°S latitude (Sculthorpe, 1967), T. latifolia may also be established on other oceanic islands with suitable wetland habitats (but not recorded). It is also increasingly seen as taking on invasive characteristics in some countries where it is native (Shih and Finkelstein, 2008; Olson et al., 2009). Furthermore, the hybrid product of T. latifolia and T. angustifolia, T. x glauca tends to be more invasive than T. latifolia (Olson et al., 2009).

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.

Last updated: 10 Feb 2022
Continent/Country/Region Distribution Last Reported Origin First Reported Invasive Reference Notes




ChinaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Andhra PradeshPresent
JapanPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
MongoliaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)


Bosnia and HerzegovinaPresentNative
Federal Republic of YugoslaviaPresentNative
North MacedoniaPresentNative
-Central RussiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Eastern SiberiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Northern RussiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Russian Far EastPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Southern RussiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
-Western SiberiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Kravchenko and Ushakova (2003-2009)
United KingdomPresentNative

North America

CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-British ColumbiaPresentNative
-New BrunswickPresentNative
-Newfoundland and LabradorPresentNative
-Northwest TerritoriesPresentNative
-Nova ScotiaPresentNative
-Prince Edward IslandPresentNative
United StatesPresent
-HawaiiPresentIntroducedNaturalized"sparingly naturalised in low elevation, marshy sites" (Wagner et al., 1999; p. 1614)
-New HampshirePresentNative
-New JerseyPresentNative
-New MexicoPresentNative
-New YorkPresentNative
-North CarolinaPresentNative
-North DakotaPresentNative
-Rhode IslandPresentNative
-South CarolinaPresentNative
-South DakotaPresentNative
-West VirginiaPresentNative


New ZealandPresentIntroduced
Papua New GuineaPresentIntroduced

South America


History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Details of how T. latifolia spread beyond its native range are difficult to ascertain, partly because there are so few regions in the world where it is not native. Furthermore, similarities between T. latifolia and native Typha species may have helped obscure invasions of new areas. Even in North America, where T. x glauca (hybrid of T. angustifolia and T. latifolia) has recently been seen to occupy a much larger distribution, the history of the spread of T. x glauca and the mechanisms involved have yet to be worked out (Shih and Finkelstein, 2008; Zhang et al., 2008).

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

A risk assessment was carried out for T. latifolia according to the Australian/New Zealand Weed Risk Assessment adapted for Hawaii (PIER, 2008). This identified T. latifolia having a high risk of invasion for the Pacific Islands, based on information from throughout the world on invasive features of T. latifolia such as high levels of seed production, persistence of seeds and rhizomes, and ability to form monocultures in wetland areas. There are few temperate or subtropical regions in the world where T. latifolia is not found, and therefore it would appear that this highly adaptable species is a threat to invade areas where it does not exist, especially if transported anthropogenically, either intentionally or accidentally.


Top of page

T. latifolia grows in a wide variety of wetland habitats. Niches include marshes, wet meadows, lakeshores, roadside ditches, seacoast estuaries, pond margins, bogs or fens as well as rice paddies (Grace and Harrison, 1986). Salt tolerance is limited, but it does grow in marine wetlands with moderate salinity, and likewise can tolerate acidity (Hotchkiss and Dozier, 1949; Smith, 1967a,b; Hootsmans and Weigman, 1998). Communities occupied by T. latifolia range from early to late successional stages. Although it is a dominant species in many wetlands forming high densities, in other wetlands it occurs as scattered individuals or clumps. It also may occupy somewhat drier sites, such as along the edge of marshy woodlands or among woody shrubs (Grace and Wetzel, 1981a). It tends to prefer shallower water zones than T. angustifolia (Grace and Wetzel, 1981b). The only type of agricultural habitat where T. latifolia regularly occurs is in rice paddies (Mitich, 2001).

Habitat List

Top of page
BrackishInland saline areas Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
Terrestrial ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Principal habitat Natural
Terrestrial ManagedDisturbed areas Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalRiverbanks Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalWetlands Principal habitat Natural
LittoralCoastal areas Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
LittoralSalt marshes Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
FreshwaterIrrigation channels Principal habitat Natural
FreshwaterLakes Principal habitat Natural
FreshwaterLakes Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
FreshwaterReservoirs Principal habitat Natural
FreshwaterReservoirs Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
FreshwaterRivers / streams Principal habitat Natural
FreshwaterPonds Principal habitat Natural
FreshwaterPonds Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
BrackishEstuaries Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
BrackishLagoons Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
MarineInshore marine Principal habitat Natural

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContextReferences
Colocasia esculenta (taro)AraceaeMain
Oryza sativaMain
Oryza sativa (rice)PoaceaeUnknown

Biology and Ecology

Top of page
A chromosome number of 2n = 30 has been reported from North America and Europe (Roscoe, 1927; Darlington and Wylie, 1955; Goldblatt, 1981). A large amount of variation occurs in the morphology of T. latifolia through its cosmopolitan range. T. latifolia shows ecotypic variation (e.g. in photoperiod requirements) across latitudinal and altitudinal gradients (McNaughton, 1966), but this may be largely a phenotypic response (Tsyusko et al., 2005). Despite the relatively wide leaf blades of T. latifolia compared to other Typha species, there is considerable plasticity in the width of the leaves (Flora of North America Association, 2008). However, a general lack of genetic diversity has been reported in T. latifolia populations (Mashburn et al., 1978, Sharitz et al., 1980; Keane et al., 1999; Lamote et al., 2005) as would be expected by the predominant mode of reproduction being self-pollination and vegetative growth via rhizomes (Krattinger, 1975). However, somewhat higher genetic variation has been found utilizing microsatellite DNA markers (Tsyusko et al., 2005). Tsyusko et al. (2006) found greater variation in T. latifolia near the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine, but this was attributed to environmental factors rather than impact of the radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986.
Hybridization between T. latifolia and T. angustifolia to produce T. x glauca was first described by Kronfeld (1889) in Europe. T. angustifolia is the maternal parent of the hybrid (Kuehn et al., 1999). T. x glauca possesses characteristics intermediate between the two parent species and is considered a distinct species in North America (Grace and Harrison, 1986).  This distinct nature of T. x glauca is reflected in electropohretic studies (Krattinger et al., 1979; Sharitz et al., 1980) and pollen morphology, which departs from the tetrads produced by T. latifolia (Gleason and Cronquist, 1963; Grace and Harrison, 1986). Pollen of T. x glauca is produced in a variety of forms including monads, diads, triads and tetrads and the plant is mostly sterile, with reproduction occurring primarily by vegetative means (Gleason and Cronquist, 1963; Smith, 1967a,b; Grace and Harrison, 1986; Larson, 1993). T. x glauca is relatively common in southeastern Canada and northern areas in the USA as well as California, and forms hybrid swarms with T. latifolia (Marsh, 1962; Smith, 1967a,b; Bayly and O’Neill, 1971). Hybrids have also been reported between T. latifolia and T. domingensis in North America, although more evidence is needed to confirm such hybridization as a regular occurrence (Zhang et al., 2008). The hybrids are sterile, but can spread via clonal growth (Flora of North America Association, 2008). Introgression between T. latifolia is likely to be uncommon because of hybrid sterility. The prominence of T. x glauca as an invasive species in parts of North America suggests widespread hybridization (Zhang et al., 2008), yet field studies have shown hybridization to be a relatively rare event, for example failing to occur over a 6 year period among co-occurring T. latifolia and T. angustolia (Selbo and Snow, 2004). Genetic analysis of T. latifolia and T. angustolia by Tsyusko et al. (2005) in the Ukraine showed no evidence of hybridization between species in that region.
Reproductive Biology
T. latifolia is wind-pollinated with some selfing occurring due to overlap between staminate and pistillate flowering (Krattinger, 1975). The plant is protogynous with stigmas receptive 1-2 days prior to pollen release on a given plant (but stigmas remain receptive for four weeks) (Smith, 1967a,b; Grace and Harrison, 1986). Large amounts of pollen are produced in tetrads, at an estimated rate of 900 million per inflorescence (Krattinger, 1975).
Seed production per inflorescence is estimated at between 20,000 and 700,000 (Prunster, 1941; Marsh, 1962; Yeo, 1964). Under dry conditions, the pistillodia within the spike shrivel allowing release of fruits. Gynophore hairs on the fruits allow long-distance dispersal by wind under dry conditions. When a seed hits the water, the pericarp opens and releases the seed pointing downward which helps embed it in the mud or even in an organism that might further disperse it (Krattinger, 1975; Grace and Harrison, 1986).
Seeds may germinate immediately after release, but only under optimum conditions, including sufficient moisture (Leck and Graveline, 1979), warm enough temperatures (Morinaga, 1926) and relatively high light levels (Sharma and Gopal, 1979). Bonnewell et al. (1983) concluded that T. latifolia seed germination required high temperatures, low O2 concentration, and relatively long exposure to light to induce high percentages of seed germination. A greater percentage of seeds germinated at 35°C than at lower temperatures. Less than 10% of the seeds germinated at 15°C and none at 10°C. For submerged seeds exposed to red light (R), maximum germination was achieved when the O2 concentration in the water reduced to between 2.3 and 4.3 mg/litre at 30 °C. Under suboptimal conditions, seeds remain dormant for long periods (van der Valk and Davis, 1976; Keddy and Reznicek, 1986) and may form a large portion of the seed bank in wetland substrates, e.g. 25% (Leck and Graveline, 1979). Field-collected broadleaf cattail seed germinated after being stored in a freshwater canal in Washington State for 5 years (Comes et al., 1978). Optimal conditions for seed germination also promote seedling establishment. Variations in water level can have critical impacts on population dynamics of T. latifolia (Keddy, 1982; Keddy and Reznicek, 1986).
Plants growing from seed may reach flowering size in the first season. Clonal growth is prolific, with new stalks sprouting from underground rhizomes. The rhizomes are the longest-lived organs, often woody, and potentially remaining viable as long as 17-22 months (Westlake, 1968). As a result, they make up more than half the total plant biomass in a given stand (Westlake, 1965; 1982).
Physiology and Phenology
In general, leaves are produced in the spring, flowering occurs in early to mid-summer, and major clonal growth in the autumn with some variation across latitudes (McNaughton, 1966; Grace and Harrison, 1986; Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). In an established stand of T. latifolia in Michigan, USA, Dickerman and Wetzel (1985) observed three pulses of shoot emergence from rhizomes. The first emerged in early spring, grew over the summer, and senesced in autumn. The second pulse was in mid-summer, and about three-quarters of the shoots senesced in the autumn, and the remainder began growing again in the following spring. The final pulse emerged in late summer and the majority of shoots resumed growth in the final year.
After germination, 2-4 small leaves are produced and 2-6 floating leaves prior to production of erect leaves. Rhizome growth begins after shoots are 35-45 cm tall (Holm et al., 1997). When flowering occurs, leaf growth ceases as the meristem is consumed. The principle meristem of the ramet is basal, giving rise to both flowers and leaves. Flowering terminates the life of the ramet, while clonal growth may simultaneously lead to expansion of the population, e.g., as large as 54 m2 in 2 years subsequent to germination with a total rhizome length of 480 m (Holm et al., 1997).
Seed germination of T. latifolia is inhibited by chemicals produced within mature stands of T. latifolia (McNaughton, 1968; van der Valk and Davis, 1976; Bonasera et al., 1979).
Rhizomes are very resilient and often woody and up to 10 cm in diameter, usually occurring just below the soil surface (Great Plains Flora Association, 1986). Under some environmental conditions they occur at somewhat greater depths, such as an alluvial basin in central Iowa where rhizomes were 15-20 cm below the surface (Hayden, 1919).
The architecture and life history of T. latifolia is better adapted to shallower water in comparison to T. angustifolia, and because T. latifolia is a superior competitor, T. angustifolia generally occupies deeper water zones where the two species co-occur (Grace and Wetzel, 1981a,b; Grace, 1985).
Photosynthetic rates are relatively high in T. latifolia, and enable this species to be among the most rapid growing of all plants, surpassing production rates for crops like maize and sorghum (McNaughton, 1973; Dickerman and Wetzel, 1985; Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). The vertical leaves expose a maximum leaf surface while minimizing self- shading (Dykyjova, 1971a,b). The input of energy early in the seasons from rhizomes also enables the plant to maximize its photosynthesis at optimal times for utilizing available solar energy (Dickerman and Wetzel, 1985).
T. latifolia is capable of thriving even under anaerobic conditions, partly by way of aerating roots and rhizomes (Sale and Wetzel, 1983). T. latifolia also has nitrogen fixation capability, measured in one study as 18 kg N per ha per year or 8.2% of the N present in the standing biomass of T. latifolia (Biesboer, 1984).
T. latifolia frequently forms monospecific stands via clonal growth that produces a dense ramet population, and thus frequently very few other vascular plants are associated with broadleaf cattail. Bacteria associated with the rhizosphere aid in nitrogen fixation by T. latifolia (Biesboer, 1984).
As an emergent aquatic plant, dominance of T. latifolia in aquatic ecosystems tends to follow early primary succession stages featuring submerged leaf and floating leaf species (Gucker, 2008). In some situations, T. latifolia colonizes habitats as a pioneer species, e.g. mudflows from the eruption of Mount St. Helens (Halpern and Harmon, 1983). In terms of secondary succession T. latifolia rapidly colonizes areas of recent disturbance where openings have been created, such as bogs disturbed by fire (Gates, 1942).
T. latifolia also tends to colonize undisturbed sites (Grace and Harrison, 1986), but is vulnerable to competition from other wetland species that tend to be more invasive such as Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) or Phragmites australis (common reed) (Hager, 2004; McGlynn, 2009).
Environmental Requirements
Preferred habitats include slightly brackish marshes and a variety of freshwater systems with slow-moving water. T. latifolia occupies wetlands over a broad spectrum of climates including tropical, subtropical, southern and northern temperate, humid coastal and dry continental climates (Grace and Harrison, 1986). In areas near the Arctic Circle such as Alaska, T. latifolia populations persist despite winter temperatures as low as - 34°C, and conditions whereby bodies of water are frozen from September to May (Grace and Harrison, 1986). At the other extreme, T. latifolia populations can persist in warm desert habitats such as Arizona sites which receive rainfall of less than 100 mm (McDonald and Hughes, 1968). T. latifolia can also exist in warm climates with high levels of humidity and plentiful summer rainfall, such as the Everglades region in southern Florida (Long, 1974).
In terms of elevation, T. latifolia also occupies a broad range, found as high as 2,300 m in parts of North America and also occupying many locations at sea level (Flora of North America Association, 2008).
T. latifolia grows in a variety of soil types. Soil textures associated with T. latifolia range through sandy, silty, loam or clay (Gucker, 2008). T. latifolia found in oxbow lakes in Alberta tolerated soils with a pH of up to 9.2 (Liefers, 1983), in contrast to boggy sites where T. latifolia has been observed to grow in areas with a pH as low as 3.4-3.5 (Schuurkes et al., 1986; Wieder et al., 1990). However, a study by Brix et al. (2002) found that growth of T. latifolia in a hydroponic environment stopped at pH 3.5, likely due to impacts on plasma membrane, and the authors concluded that the ability of T. latifolia to occupy low pH was through modification of the rhizosphere environment to protect tissues from high acidity. Excess nutrients or eutrophication of a wetland may cause T. latifolia to increase at the expense of other wetland plant species (Drohan et al., 2006).
In some areas, T. latifolia can survive with very minimal soil, when it forms floating mats in wetlands. Air spaces in the rhizomes provide buoyancy for smaller mats, while thicker mats are buoyed up by air bubbles produced during anaerobic decomposition (Hogg and Wein, 1988).
Salinity tolerance is stage-dependent with no seeds germinating above 1 atm osmotic pressure, but T. latifolia exhibits more tolerance in the seedling stage and older (Choudhuri, 1968). In Louisiana, USA, T. latifolia grows in areas with salinity levels up to 1.13% (Penfound and Hathaway, 1938); T. latifolia was found to exist in environments with less than 10 mS/cm salinity in western Canada (Shay and Shay, 1986).

Flooding and water depth are key determinants of the establishment and persistence of T. latifolia populations. Tolerance of fluctuating water levels depends on a variety of factors, including the maturity of plants, rhizome production, associated vegetation and other disturbances (Grace, 1989; Gucker, 2008). As an emergent plant, optimal water levels tend to be high enough to keep lower parts of the plants submerged, but low enough to prevent interference with photosynthesis and respiration. Controlled experiments showed decreased rhizome production at water levels above 30 cm (Weller, 1975). T. latifolia died in water depths over 95 cm and density was greatest at 22 cm depths in experimental ponds in Arkansas (Grace, 1989). Oxygen is transported from aerial portions to rhizomes to allow survival and growth so long as enough of the plant is above water (Sale and Wetzel, 1983). T. latifolia has been found to tolerate drying of wetlands over several months (Fickbohm and Zhu, 2006), but perish if water was drained for a period of 2 years (Nelson and Dietz, 1966).


Top of page
Am - Tropical monsoon climate Tolerated Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25]))
BW - Desert climate Tolerated < 430mm annual precipitation
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 Preferred Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)
Ds - Continental climate with dry summer Preferred Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)
Dw - Continental climate with dry winter Tolerated Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters)
ET - Tundra climate Tolerated Tundra climate (Average temp. of warmest month < 10°C and > 0°C)

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
66 30

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) -63
Mean annual temperature (ºC) -6 28
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) 15 40
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) -31 22


Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Mean annual rainfall70mm; lower/upper limits

Soil Tolerances

Top of page

Soil drainage

  • impeded
  • seasonally waterlogged

Soil reaction

  • acid

Soil texture

  • heavy
  • light
  • medium

Special soil tolerances

  • saline

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Arsilonche albovenosa Herbivore Plants|Leaves to genus
Bellura obliqua Herbivore Plants|Leaves; Plants|Stems to genus
Calendra pertinax Herbivore Plants|Leaves; Plants|Stems to genus
Dicymolomia julianalis Herbivore Plants|Inflorescence; Plants|Seeds to genus
Ischnorrhynchus Herbivore Plants|Inflorescence; Plants|Seeds to genus
Limnaecia phragmitella Herbivore Plants|Inflorescence; Plants|Seeds to genus
Nonagria Herbivore Plants|Leaves to genus
Pomacea Herbivore Plants|Leaves to genus

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page
Insects feeding within inflorescences of T. latifolia include Lepidopterans: Limnaecia phragmitella, Archips obsolecia, Dicymolomia julianalis; and the Hemipteran: Ischnorrhynchus resedae (Claassen, 1918; Grace and Harrison, 1986). Surface feeders on the leaves of T. latifolia include Arsilonche albovenosa (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Calendra pertinax (Coleoptera) and aphids (Claassen, 1918; Klots, 1966; Grace and Harrison, 1986). Leaf miners include the Lepidopterans Belluraobliqua (=Arzama oblique) and Nonagriaoblonga (Claassen, 1918; Klots, 1966; Grace and Harrison, 1986). B. obliqua also attacks the stalks later in its lifecycle, as does the beetle C. pertinax (Grace and Harrison, 1986). C. pertinax also feeds within the rhizomes. B. obliqua was observed to reduce T. latifolia production by 55% (Penko, 1985); consumption of the stems by this insect may result in death of younger leaves and abortion of the inflorescence (Grace and Harrison, 1986).
Other invertebrates:
The apple snail (Pomacea insularum), native to South America, was observed feeding on T. latifolia in North America (Burlakova et al., 2009).
Numerous fungi have been identified on T. latifolia, colonizing various stages of the plant. Shulz and Thorman (2005) identified 45 species on T. latifolia from northern Alberta alone.
Various terrestrial birds may use the cattail fruits for nesting materials; stems are utilized by aquatic birds for nesting material and cover (Motivans and Afelbaum, 1987). Some ducks feed on the seeds, although the seeds are too small to be a valued food source; geese consume the stems (USDA-NRCS, 2010).
Muskrats have significant impacts on the ecology of T. latifolia, with T. latifolia (particularly stems and roots) forming a major food source for these rodents; muskrats also utilize the stems for housing materials (Motivans and Afelbaum, 1987; USDA-NRCS, 2010).  Other small mammals such as white-footed mice and nutria have also been found to utilize T. latifolia (Nickell, 1965; Kinler et al., 1987).

Various ungulates have been found to graze on T. latifolia including livestock (e.g. cattle) as well as wild ungulates, e.g. deer, elk or moose (Boggs et al., 1990; USDA-ARS, 2010).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Seeds of T. latifolia may be transported on a large scale by wind or by water, and are well-adapted for these modes of dispersal (Grace and Harrison, 1986). The plumed seeds may have a potential wind-dispersal range of 3600 m (Soons and Ozinga, 2005). Rhizome growth and fragmentation may also provide a mechanism for short-distance dispersal (Grace and Wetzel, 1981a). Even within its native range, T. latifolia has been observed to increase; in North America various Typha species have undergone range expansion, particularly T. angustifolia and T. x glauca, as a result of anthropogenically influenced environmental stressors allowing T. x glauca to occupy areas beyond the traditional range of T. latifolia (Waters and Shay, 1990; 1992; Galatowitch et al., 1999).
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Seeds may be readily transported by birds and livestock through their presence in mud in areas where T. latifolia grows (DPIWE, 2005), and disturbance by animals may also play a role (Hewitt and Miyanishi, 1997).
Accidental Introduction
Mud transported with machinery may carry large numbers of T. latifolia seed (DPIWE, 2005). The frequent occurrence of T. latifolia in damp roadside areas facilitates dispersal along corridors created by roadways (Hansen and Clevenger, 2005).
Intentional Introduction

T. latifolia is used in many regions of the world for ecological restoration of wetlands (Motivans and Afelbaum, 1987; Dobberteen and Nickerson, 1991; Svengsouk and Mitch, 2001) or for construction of artificial wetland systems used in the amelioration of contaminants (Ciria et al., 2005; Calheiros et al., 2009). Movement of T. latifolia may also be associated with its use as a crop, especially as a potential biomass crop (Ciria et al., 2005).

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Aquaculture stock Yes Yes USDA-NRCS (2010)
Soil, sand and gravelSeeds that become attached via mud Yes DiTomaso and Healy (2003)
Water Yes Grace and Harrison (1986)
Wind Yes Grace and Harrison (1986)

Impact Summary

Top of page
Cultural/amenity Positive
Economic/livelihood Positive and negative
Environment (generally) Positive and negative

Economic Impact

Top of page
T. latifolia is more commonly referred to as a weed in Europe and North America than in other regions in its native range. T. latifolia infests irrigated systems and aquacultural systems, e.g. in Australia, India, and Romania, and is a problem affecting irrigated rice in Morocco and Russia. It is a common rice weed in USA (Oryza sativa) and also occurs in rice in Greece, India, Iran, Mexico, the Philippines, and Portugal (Mitich, 2001). A California survey found 47% of rice fields contained T. latifolia (McIntyre and Barrett, 1985). In Hawaii, establishment of T. latifolia threatens production of taro (HISP, 2008).

Excessive populations of T. latifolia may invade canals, ditches, reservoirs, cultivated fields, and farm ponds; it may impact recreational lakes negatively and reduce biodiversity and displace species more desirable for certain kinds of wildlife (Morton, 1975; Grace and Harrison, 1986; Thieret and Luken, 1996).

Environmental Impact

Top of page
Impact on Habitats
The ability of T. latifolia to dominate wetlands on a large scale, and rapidly create large amounts of biomass enables these plants to play major roles in nutrient cycles. A wetland without Typha invaded by T. glauca exhibited large changes in the sediment characteristics, including ten times as much soluble ammonium, nitrate and phosphate, indicating the wetland was unable to remove nutrients effectively (Angeloni et al., 2006).  A key to understanding many wetland systems with large populations of T. latifolia is the dynamics of the litter produced through the lifecycle of this highly productive plant that goes through repeated cycles of re-birth and decay (Farrer and Goldberg, 2009). Establishment or expansion of T. latifolia populations may also greatly influence fire dynamics (Gucker, 2008).
Impact on Biodiversity

In Hawaii, wetlands are home to rare endemic birds such as the Hawaiian stilt (Himantopus himantopus knudseni) and the Hawaiin duck or koloa maoli (Anas wyvilliana) which are threatened by infestations of T. latifolia (HISP, 2008). Likewise, there are vulnerable indigenous wetland species in other geographic regions being invaded by T. latifolia such as New Zealand, Australia and parts of Southeast Asia. The ability of T. latifolia to quickly spread once it is introduced to an area is augmented by the potential seen in recent years for hybridization with other Typha species (Galatowitsch et al., 1999), although more work needs to be carried out to understand the nature of such hybridization (Shih and Finkelstein, 2008; Zhang et al., 2008).

Threatened Species

Top of page
Threatened SpeciesConservation StatusWhere ThreatenedMechanismReferencesNotes
Anas wyvilliana (Hawaiian duck)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)HawaiiHawaii Invasive Species Partnership (HISP) (2008); IUCN (2008)
Himantopus himantopus (black-winged stilt)LC (IUCN red list: Least concern)HawaiiHawaii Invasive Species Partnership (HISP) (2008); IUCN (2008)
Xyris tennesseensis (Tennessee yellow-eyed grass)USA ESA listing as endangered speciesUSAEcosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service (1994)

Social Impact

Top of page

T. latifolia is a well-known plant to many people around the world, and often an indicator of healthy wetlands, which are increasingly recognized as providing significant ecosystem services in the global environment. However, in contexts where T. latifolia negatively impacts the environment, particularly wildlife, a negative social impact results as well (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987; HISP, 2008).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Abundant in its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Long lived
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Gregarious
  • Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
  • Reproduces asexually
Impact outcomes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Infrastructure damage
  • Modification of fire regime
  • Modification of hydrology
  • Modification of natural benthic communities
  • Modification of nutrient regime
  • Modification of successional patterns
  • Monoculture formation
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Soil accretion
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
  • Transportation disruption
Impact mechanisms
  • Allelopathic
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition - shading
  • Competition - smothering
  • Filtration
  • Hybridization
  • Interaction with other invasive species
  • Rapid growth
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult/costly to control


Top of page
Economic Value
T. latifolia and other Typha species were historically used by many indigenous peoples (Turner, 1981; Gott, 1999). Various parts of the plant may be eaten, e.g. rhizomes as a cooked vegetable or as a source of flour; pollen also in the genesis of flour; shoots may be eaten raw or cooked; spikes may be eaten raw, boiled or used as soup stock (Fernald et al., 1958; Turner, 1981).
Historically T. latifolia has been used throughout the world as building material, bedding, basketry, shoemaking, rope and paper manufacture and within a variety of herbal applications (Ramey, 1981; Mitich, 2001). Fluff from fruiting spikes has been employed as tinder and insulation, dressing burns, and stuffing pillows, mattresses and various other articles. Still today Typha species are seen as having a large unrealized potential, and new uses are envisioned, such as biomass production or as a modern-day food crop (Morton, 1975; Pratt et al., 1980; Ciria et al., 2005). Other relatively new uses include water purification, bioremediation (Carranza-Alvarez et al., 2008; Chun and Choi, 2009; Moore et al., 2009), as a bioindicator of pollution (Mirka et al., 1996) or the production of chemical products (Staba, 1973). A recent investigation looked at the potential of T. latifolia to bioremediate naphthenic acids produced in extraction of petroleum from Alberta’s tar sands (Headley et al., 2009).
T. latifolia is cultivated as an ornamental. It is often sold commercially and planted for wildlife habitat and in wetland restoration.
Social Benefit
The environments created by T. latifolia frequently hold great importance in terms of recreational value, and are highly prized by outdoor enthusiasts including hunters, fishermen, and naturalists.
Environmental Services

The value of T. latifolia and its congeners to a variety of wildlife has been well documented (Grace and Harrison, 1986). Certain types of wildlife such as red-winged blackbirds and muskrats in North America have a very close association with cattail marshes (Skinner and Skinner, 2008). T. latifolia also can be an indicator of the nutrient balance of a given system, as well as an agent to promote balance through nutrient cycling (Craft, 2007). T. latifolia grew more rapidly in response to increased carbon dioxide, which may indicate some potential for the maintenance of T. latifolia populations to ameliorate climate change, depending on the litter dynamics in a given system (Sullivan et al., 2010).

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Forage


  • Amenity
  • Landscape improvement
  • Revegetation
  • Wildlife habitat


  • Biofuels


  • Botanical garden/zoo
  • Pet/aquarium trade
  • Research model
  • Sociocultural value

Human food and beverage

  • Flour/starch
  • Vegetable


  • Alcohol
  • Chemicals
  • Essential oils
  • Mulches
  • Poisonous to mammals

Medicinal, pharmaceutical

  • Traditional/folklore


  • Propagation material

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

A survey was conducted among people in the aquatic plant trade in New Zealand (Champion and Clayton, 2001), and in the process provided information on identification so that T. latifolia could be distinguished from the native Typha species, T. orientalis (Champion et al., 2007). In particular,characteristics used to distinguish T. latifolia were: leaf sheaths tapering to lamina, female flower lacking scales, female spike dark brown, male and female spikes of similar lengths, and the grouping of pollen grains in tetrads. The identification utilized literature resources such as Fassett and Calhoun (1952), Aston (1973), Tutin et al. (1980), and Smith (1967a,b). The two species as well as T. laxmannii, another potential invader of New Zealand, are illustrated in Champion et al. (2007).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page
Key characteristics distinguishing T. latifolia from T. angustifolia and the hybrid T. x glauca are: leaves which rarely overtop the flowering spike and broader leaves (5-19 mm wide in T. x glauca and moderately planoconvex and 3-8 mm wide in T. angustifolia and strongly planoconvex), usually contiguous staminate and pistillate spikes (separated by a gap of 5-120 mm in T. angustifolia and 0-33 mm in T. x glauca), and a robust, dark brown spike at maturity with no pistillate bracheoles (T. angustifolia and T. x glauca have pistillate bracheoles and the pistillate spike is green for T. x glauca at antithesis) (Grace and Harrison, 1986).
There are challenges to distinguishing T. domingensis and T. latifolia in the field because of morphological similarities, particularly before the flower appears. T. latifolia may often be identified by darker pistillate flowers and wider leaves, but a gap between the staminate and pistillate is considered the defining characteristic of T. domingensis, though such characteristics are not always consistent (Zhang et al., 2008).

By comparison to T. orientalis (raupo) (native to New Zealand and Australia), the leaves of T. latifolia are broader, flatter and paler, and the flower spark is black-brown in colour compared with the chestnut brown of T. orientalis (Champion et al., 2007).

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.

T. latifolia is banned from sale, propagation and distribution throughout New Zealand (MAF Biosecurity Authority, 2002; Champion et al., 2007). Similar restrictions are in place in other areas where it is an alien invasive, although evidently T. latifolia is still available for sale in places such as Australia (where it appears for sale on horticultural websites).

Within some areas of its introduced range where populations are relatively sparse (e.g. New Zealand or Hawaii), attempts are being made to eradicate T. latifolia through removal of all plants and rhizomes where it appears, or through employing other methods of control (Champion et al., 2007; HISP, 2008).

Cultural control and sanitary measures
Frequently T. latifolia is not seen as a weed to be eradicated, but rather a plant that must be managed to prevent populations from reaching damaging levels. Cultural control methods may often be key in managing populations at acceptable levels. Three common goals in T. latifolia management, as listed by Motivans and Apfelbaum (1987) are to:
1.     Ensure that spread of T. latifolia does not lead to domination of native habitats;
2.     Avoid the reduction of native plant populations due to proliferation of T. latifolia;
3.     Prevent formation of large monocultures of T. latifolia and associated loss of habitat diversity.
Water level modification serves as a major cultural tool to manage populations of T. latifolia and other Typha species. Either flooding or draining of wetlands is likely to reduce populations, but these techniques must be used judiciously to avoid negative side effects. Seeds may disperse to a site, or germinate from seed banks rapidly following a flooding event; likewise, rhizomes can produce new plants readily (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). If water levels increase enough to submerge large portions of the above-ground plant (e.g. 65 cm or greater), there can be significant impacts. Likewise draining can reduce vigour of T. latifolia plants and population decline, but often only after one or two years of low water levels, and if accompanied by burning may have much greater efficacy (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). By drawing down water levels, reductions in T. latifolia may allow annual species preferred by waterfowl to establish (Kadlec and Wentz, 1974).
Physical/mechanical control
Fire and physical removal (cutting) can be used to control T. latifolia, and is particularly effective when accompanied by manipulating water level (Motivans and Apfelbaun, 1987). Fire also reduces litter and contributes to better access for further mechanical measures (Malik and Wein, 1986).
One effective method of physical control involves cutting stems followed by submergence of the stems that remain (Gucker, 2008). Sale and Wetzel (1983) found that if relatively small fractions of T. latifolia or T. angustifolia stems remained above water after cutting, the plants were able to survive. However, complete submergence seriously compromised the physiology of rhizomes via anaerobic respiration. Clipping may be repeated for increased efficacy. Black polyethylene tarps may also be employed to kill T. latifolia through solarization. Small seedlings can also be uprooted, but care must be taken to remove all traces of rhizomes (DPIWE, 2005).
Movement control
Because of the long-dispersal capability of T. latifolia seeds, the plant may readily re-establish in areas where it has been controlled, so long as there are seed sources within a 1 km radius or greater. However, attempts can be made to prevent movement of seeds through presence of mud from T. latifolia wetlands on machinery.
Biological control
Although a number of insects and fungi are documented as feeding on T. latifolia and other Typha species, biological control as an option for managing cattails has not been explored. However, grazing by ungulates has been shown to help reduce stand densities (Gucker, 2008), although aquatic animals such as muskrats or geese (Canada geese or snow geese) may often be more effective (Sojda and Solberg, 1993). Population levels of 10 muskrats/acre were found to nearly eliminate cattails in 2 years when combined with high spring water levels (Sojda and Solberg, 1993).
Chemical control
Soil applied herbicides are generally ineffective in controlling T. latifolia, so long as standing water is present (Sculthorpe, 1967; Grace and Harrison, 1987). A number of foliar applied herbicides have been demonstrated to control T. latifolia, including 2, 4-D, amitrole, dalapon and paraquat (Corns and Gupta, 1971). Repeated herbicide applications are often necessary, e.g. up to 3 years (Apfelbaum, 1985).
In Queensland, Australia, where T. latifolia is not native, different herbicides are recommended for different situations (DPI Queensland 2007). For waterways, channels and drains, either glyphosate or 2, 2-DPA systemic herbicide is recommended. Likewise glyphosate is recommended for bore drains or pastures, whereas spot spraying amitrole is recommended for irrigation channels.
Particularly where the nearly cosmopolitan T. latifolia is native, eradication is seldom the goal, but rather achieving ideal population levels. For wildlife management purposes, a 50:50 cover:water ratio may be optimal in many habitats (Beule, 1979), and managers may be able to achieve this largely through water level management. Likewise, where T. latifolia is non-native, it may be nearly impossible to eradicate it, but cultural management techniques may be employed to reduce populations.
Ecosystem Restoration

T. latifolia has frequently been planted and/or managed to provide ecosystem services in wetlands to promote wildlife habitat, stabilize shorelines or reduce contaminants or even salinity (Marsh, 1962; Gopal and Sharma, 1980; Bonham, 1983).

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

There is a need for further research on management, particularly in areas where it is not-native. Almost no work has been done to examine the potential for biological control. There is also a great need for more work to look at specific impacts T. latifolia has on biodiversity on all levels.


Top of page

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.

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

Aston HI, 1973. Aquatic plants of Australia, Melbourne. Melbourne University Press.

Bayly IL, O'Neill TA, 1971. A study of introgression in Typha at Point Pelee Marsh, Ontario. Canadian Field Naturalist, 85:309-314.

Beule JD, Hine RL, 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. DNR Technical Bulletin, No. 112.

Biesboer DD, 1984. Nitrogen fixation associated with natural and cultivated stands of Typha latifolia L. (Typhaceae). American Journal of Botany, 71(4):505-511.

Boggs K, Hansen P, Pfister R, Joy J, 1990. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana Riparian Association, 217 pp. [Draft Version 1.]

Bonasera J, Lynch J, Leck MA, 1979. Comparison of the allelopathic potential of four marsh species. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 106(3):217-222.

Bonham AJ, 1983. The management of wave-spending vegetation as bank protection against boat wash. Landscape Planning, 10(1):15-30.

Bonnewell V, Koukkari WL, Pratt DC, 1983. Light, oxygen, and temperature requirements for Typha latifolia seed germination. Canadian Journal of Botany, 61:1330-1336.

Brix H, Dyhr-Jensen K, Lorenzen B, 2002. Root-zone acidity and nitrogen source affects Typha latifolia L. growth and uptake kinetics of ammonium and nitrate. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53(379):2441-2450.

Burlakova LE, Karatayev AY, Padilla DK, Cartwright LD, Hollas DN, 2009. Wetland restoration and invasive species: apple snail (Pomacea insularum) feeding on native and invasive aquatic plants. Restoration Ecology, 17(3):433-440.

Calheiros CSC, Rangel AOSS, Castro PML, 2009. Treatment of industrial wastewater with two-stage constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis. Bioresource Technology, 100(13):3205-3213.

Carranza-Âlvarez C, Alonso-Castro AJ, Alfaro-De La Torre MC, Cruz RFGDe La, 2008. Accumulation and distribution of eavy metals in Scirpus americanus and Typha latifolia from an artificial lagoon in San Luis Potosí, México. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 188:297-309.

Champion PD, Clayton JS, 2001. Border control for potential aquatic weeds. Stage 2. Weed risk assessment. Science for Conservation, 185:30 pp.

Champion PD, Hofstra DE, Clayton JS, 2007. Border control for potential aquatic weeds: Stage 3. Weed risk management. Science for Conservation, No.271:41 pp.

Choudhuri GN, 1968. Effect of soil salinity on germination and survival of some steppe plants in Washington. Ecology, 49:465-471.

Christopher C, Krull K, Graham S, 2007. Ecological indicators of nutrient enrichment, freshwater wetlands, Midwestern United States (U.S.). Ecological Indicators, 7:733-750.

Chun YM, Choi YD, 2009. Expansion of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. (common reed) into Typha spp. (cattail) wetlands in Northwestern Indiana, USA. Journal of Plant Biology, 52:220-228.

Ciria MP, Solano ML, Soriano P, 2005. Role of macrophyte Typha latifolia in a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment and assessment of its potential as a biomass fuel. Biosystems Engineering, 92(4):535-544.

Claassen PW, 1918. Typha insects: their ecological relationships. Cornell University Agricultural Experimental Station Memoirs, 47:unpaginated.

Comes R, Bruns V, Kelly A, 1978. Longevity of certain weed and crop seeds in fresh water. Weed Science, 26:336-344.

Comes RD, Bruns VF, Kelley AD, 1978. Longevity of certain weed and crop seeds in fresh water. Weed Science, 26(4):336-344

CORNS WG, GUPTA RK, 1971. Chemical control of cattail, Typha latifolia. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 51(6):491-7.

Craft CB, 2007. Freshwater input structures soil properties, vertical accretion and nutrient accumulation of Georgia and United States (US) tidal marshes. Limnol Oceanogr, 52:1220-1230.

Darlington CD, Wylie AP, 1955. Chromosome atlas of flowering plants. London, UK: Allan & Unwin.

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI) Queensland Government, 2007. Cumbungi (bullrush or cat's tail) Typha species factsheet. Cumbungi (bullrush or cat's tail) Typha species factsheet. unpaginated.

Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment Tasmania (DPIWE), 2005. Weeds, pests and diseases. Cumbungi/bull rush (Typha spp.). Weeds, pests and diseases. Cumbungi/bull rush (Typha spp.). unpaginated.

Dickerman JA, Wetzel RG, 1985. Clonal growth in Typha latifolia: population dynamics and demography of the ramets. Journal of Ecology, 73(2):535-552.

DiTomaso JM, Healy EA, 2003. Aquatic and riparian weeds of the West [ed. by DiTomaso, J. M.\Healy, E. A.]. Oakland, USA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources Communications Services - Publications, vi + 442 pp.

Dobberteen RA, Nickerson NH, 1991. Use of created cattail (Typha) wetlands in mitigation strategies. Environmental Management, 15(4):797-808

Drohan PJ, Ross CN, Anderson JT, Fortney RF, Rentch JS, 2006. Soil and hydrological drivers of Typha latifolia encroachment in a marl wetland. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 14(2):107-122.

Dykyjova D, 1971. Production, vertical structure and light profiles in littoral stands of reed-bed species. Hidrobiologia, Romania, 12:361-376.

DYKYJOVÂ D, 1971. Productivity and solar energy conversion in reedswamp stands in comparison with outdoor mass cultures of algae in the temperate climate of central Eurooe. Photosynthetica, 5(4):329-340.

Farrer EC, Goldberg DE, 2009. Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecological Applications, 19(2):398-412.

Fernald ML, Kinsey AC, Rollins RC, 1958. Edible wild plants of eastern North Amerca. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 452 pp.

Fickbohm SS, Zhu WX, 2006. Exotic purple loosestrife invasion of native cattail freshwater wetlands: effects on organic matter distribution and soil nitrogen cycling. Applied Soil Ecology, 32(1):123-131.

Flora of North America Association, 2008. Flora of North America: the flora, [online]. Flora of North America: the flora, [online]. Flora of North America Association, unpaginated.

Fossett N, Calhoun BM, 1952. Introgression between Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia. Evolution, 6:367-379.

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

Gates FC, 1942. The bogs of northern lower Michigan. Ecological Monographs, 12:213-54.

Gleason HA, Cronquist A, 1963. Manual of vascular plants of Northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Princeton, New Jersey: D. van Nostrand, 810 pp.

Global Invasive Species Database, 2006. Typha latifolia. Global Invasive Species Database. unpaginated.

Golblatt P, 1981. Index to plant chromosome numbers. Ann Arbor, Mich. Braun-Brumfield Inc., 533 pp. [Monographs in Systematic Botany, vol. 5.]

Gopal B, Sharma KP, 1980. Aquatic weed control versus utilisation. Economic Botany, 33(3):340-346.

Gott B, 1999. Cumbungi, Typha species, a staple Aboriginal food in southern Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1999(1):33-50.

Grace JB, 1985. Juvenile vs. adult competitive abilities in plants: size-dependence in cattails (Typha). Ecology, 66(5):1630-1638.

Grace JB, 1989. Effects of water depth on Typha latifolia and Typha domingensis. American Journal of Botany, 76(5):762-768.

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, 1981. Habitat partitioning and competitive displacement in cattails (Typha): experimental field studies. American Naturalist, 118(4):463-474.

Grace JB, Wetzel RG, 1981. Phenotypic and genotypic components of growth and reproduction in Typha latifolia: experimental studies in marshes of differing successional maturity. Ecology, 62(3):789-801.

Great Plains Flora Association, 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1392 pp.

Gucker CL, 2008. Typha latifolia. Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, unpaginated.

Hager HA, 2004. Competitive effect versus competitive response of invasive and native wetland plant species. Oecologia, 139(1):140-149.

Halpern CB, Harmon ME, 1983. Early plant succession on the Muddy River mudflow, Mount St. Helens, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist, 110(1):97-106.

Hansen MJ, Clevenger AP, 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation, 125(2):249-259.

Hawaii Invasive Species Partnership (HISP), 2008. Cattail (Typha latifolia). Cattail (Typha latifolia). unpaginated.

Hayden A, 1919. The ecologic subterranean anatomy of some plants of a prairie province in central Iowa. American Journal of Botany, 6(3):87-105.

Headley JV, Peru KM, Armstrong SA, Han X, Martin JW, Mapolelo MM, Smith DF, Rogers RP, Marshall AG, 2009. Aquatic plant-derived changes in oil sands naphthenic acid signatures determined by low-, high- and ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications In Mass Spectrometry, 23:515-522.

Hewitt N, Miyanishi K, 1997. The role of mammals in maintaining plant species richness in a floating typha marsh in southern Ontario. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6:1085-1102.

Hickman JC, 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1400 pp.

Hitchcock CL, Cronquist A, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, USA: University of Washington Press.

Hogg EH, Wein RW, 1988. The contribution of Typha components to floating mat buoyancy. Ecology, USA, 69(4):1025-1031.

Holm L, Doll J, Holm E, Pancho J, Herberger J, 1997. World weeds: natural histories and distribution. Wiley-Blackwell, 1129 pp.

Hootsmans MJM, Wiegman F, 1998. Four helophyte species growing under salt stress: their salt of life? Aquatic Botany, 62(2):81-94.

Hotchkiss N, Dozier HL, 1949. Taxonomy and distribution of North American cattails. American Midland Naturalist, 41:237-254.

Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, 2004. Effect of invasive plant species on temperate wetland plant diversity. Conservation Biology, 18(4):1132-1138.

IUCN, 2008. IUCN Red List, April 2008. IUCN Red List, April 2008.

Kadlec JA, Wentz WA, 1974. State-of-the-art survey and evaluation of marsh plant establishment techniques: induced and natural. Vol. 1. Report on research. State-of-the-art survey and evaluation of marsh plant establishment techniques: induced and natural. Vol. 1. Report on research. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Army Coastal Engineering and Research Center, unpaginated.

Keane B, Pelikan S, Toth G, Smith MK, Rogstad SH, 1999. Genetic diversity of Typha latifolia (Typhaceae) and the impact of pollutants examined with tandem-repetitive DNA probes. American Journal of Botany, 86:1226-1238.

Keddy PA, 1982. Quantifying within-lake gradients of wave energy: interrelationships of wave energy, substrate particle size and shoreline plants in Axe Lake, Ontario. Aquatic Botany, 14:41-48.

Keddy PA, Reznicek AA, 1986. Great lakes vegetation dynamics: the role of fluctuating water levels and buried seeds. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 12(1):25-36.

Kinler NW, Linscombe G, Ramsey PR, 1987. Nutria. In: Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America [ed. by Novak, M.\Baker, J. A.\Obbard, M. E.\Malloch, B.]. North Bay, ON: Ontario Trappers Association, 326-342.

Kiran, G. G. R., Rao, A. S., 2013. Survey of weed flora in transplanted rice in Krishna agroclimatic zone of Andhra Pradesh, India. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research, 19(1), 45-51.

Klots EB, 1966. Freshwater life. NY: GP Putnams Sons.

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

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.

Kravchenko OE, Ushakova RS, 2003-2009. Interactive Agricultural Ecological Atlas of Russia and Neighboring Countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds. Interactive Agricultural Ecological Atlas of Russia and Neighboring Countries. Economic Plants and their Diseases, Pests and Weeds. unpaginated.

Kronfeld M, 1889. [English title not available]. (Monographie der Gattung Typha Tourn. (Typhinae Agdh., Typhaceae Schur-Engl.).) Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen, 39:89-192.

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.

Lamote V, Loose Mde, Bockstaele Evan, Roldán-Ruiz I, 2005. Evaluation of AFLP markers to reveal genetic diversity in Typha. Aquatic Botany, 83(4):296-309.

Larson GE, 1993. Aquatic and wetland vascular plants of the Northern Great Plains. Aquatic and wetland vascular plants of the Northern Great Plains. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 681 pp. [Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-238.]

Leck MA, Graveline KJ, 1979. The seed bank of a freshwater tidal marsh. American Journal of Botany, 66(9):1006-1015.

Lieffers VJ, 1983. Growth of Typha latifolia in boreal forest habitats, as measured by double sampling. Aquatic Botany, 15(3):335-348.

Long RW, 1974. The vegetation of southern Florida. Florida Scientist, 37(1):33-45.

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) Biosecurity Authority, 2002. National Plant Pest Accord. National Plant Pest Accord. unpaginated.

Mallik AU, Wein RW, 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 64(9):2136-2143.

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

Mashburn SJ, Sharitz RR, Smith MH, 1978. Genetic variation among Typha populations of the southeastern United States. Evolution, 32:681-685.

McDonald CC, Hughes GH, 1968. Studies of consumptive use of water by phreatophytes and hydrophytes near Yuma, Arizona. Water resources of lower Colorado River - Salton Sea area. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, F1 to F24. [Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-F.]

McGlynn CA, 2009. Native and invasive plant interactions in wetlands and the minimal role of invasiveness. Biological Invasions, 11(8):1929-1939.

McIntyre S, Barrett SCH, 1985. A comparison of weed communities of rice in Australia and California. Symposium Proceedings of the Australian Ecological Society, 14:237-250. [Are Australian Ecosystems Different?.]

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, 1973. Comparative photosynthesis of Quebec and California ecotypes of Typha latifolia. Ecology, 54:1260-1270.

Mirka MA, Clulow FV, Dave NK, Lim TP, 1996. Radium-226 in cattails, Typha latifolia, and bone of muskrat, Ondatra zibethica (L.), from a watershed with uranium tailings near the city of Elliot Lake, Canada. Environmental Pollution, 91:41-51.

Mitich LM, 2001. Common cattail, Typha latifolia L. Weed Technology, 14(2):446-450.

Moore MT, Kröger R, Cooper CM, Smith S Jr, 2009. Ability of four emergent macrophytes to remediate permethrin in mesocosm experiments. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 57(2):282-288.

Morinaga T, 1926. Effect of alternating temperature upon the germination of seeds. American Journal of Botany, 13:141-158.

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

Motivans K, Apfelbaum S, 1987. The nature conservancy element stewardship abstract: Typha spp North American cattails. The nature conservancy element stewardship abstract: Typha spp North American cattails. unpaginated.

NELSON NF, DIETZ RH, 1966. Cattail control methods in Utah. Pubis. Utah St. Dep. Fish Game, 66-2:31 pp.

Nickell WP, 1965. Habitats, territory, and nesting of the catbird. The American Midland Naturalist, 73(2):433-478.

Olson A, Paul J, Freeland JR, 2009. Habitat preferences of cattail species and hybrids (Typha spp.) in eastern Canada. Aquatic Botany, 91(2):67-70.

PENFOUND WT, HATHAWAY ES, 1938. Plant communities in the marshlands of Southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monographs, 8:3-56.

Penko JM, 1985. Ecological studies of Typha in Minnesota: Typha - insect interactions and the productivity of floating stands. Minneapolis, Minn, USA: University of Minnesota.

PIER, 2008. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. USA: Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry.

PIER, 2009. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk., USA: Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry.

Pojar J, MacKinnon A, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing, 526 pp.

Pratt DC, Bonnewell V, Andrews NJ, Kim JH, 1980. The potential of cattails as an energy source: report to the Minnesota Energy Agency. The potential of cattails as an energy source: report to the Minnesota Energy Agency. St. Paul, Minn: Bio-Energy Coordinating Office, University of Minnesota, 147 pp.

PRUNSTER RW, 1941. Germination conditions for Typha Muelleri (Bohrbach) and its practical significance in irrigation channel maintenance. Journal of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Australia, 14:129-36.

Ramey V, 1981. Typha - not just another weed. Aquaphyte, Newsletter of the IPPC Aquatic Weed Program of the University of Florida, 1(1):1-2.

Roscoe MV, 1927. Cytological studies in the genus Typha. Botanical Gazette, 84:392-406.

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

Schulz MJ, Thormann MN, 2005. Functional and taxonomic diversity of saprobic filamentous fungi from Typha latifolia from central Alberta, Canada. Wetlands, 25(3):675-684.

Schuurkes JAAR, Kok CJ, Hartog CDen, 1986. Ammonium and nitrate uptake by aquatic plants from poorly buffered and acidified waters. Aquatic Botany, 24:131-146.

Sculthorpe CD, 1967. The biology of aquatic vascular plants. New York: St. Martin's Press, 610 pp.

Selbo SM, Snow AA, 2004. The potential for hybridization between Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia in a constructed wetland. Aquatic Botany, 78(4):361-369.

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

Sharma KP, Gopal B, 1979. Effect of light intensity on seedling establishment and growth in Typha anugustat Bor and Chaub. Polish Archives of Hydrobiology, 26:495-500.

Shay JM, Shay CT, 1986. Prairie marshes in western Canada, with specific reference to the ecology of five emergent macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Botany, 64(2):443-454

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.

Skinner KM, Skinner LC, 2008. Abundance and aggression of muskrats in selected wetlands of Northeastern New York. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 23(2):231-236.

Smith SG, 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North America. Typha (Typhaceae). American Midland Naturalist, 78(2):295-97.

Smith SG, 1967. Typha: its taxonomy and the ecological significant of hybrids. Archives fur Hydrobiologie, 27:129-138.

Sojda RS, Solberg KL, 1993. Management and control of cattails. Management and control of cattails. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife, unpaginated. [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.13.]

Soons MB, Ozinga WA, 2005. How important is long-distance seed dispersal for the regional survival of plant species? Diversity and Distributions, 11(2):165-172.

Staba EJ, 1973. Alleviation of lake pollution by utilization of aquatic plants for nutritional, medicinal or industrial purposes. Alleviation of lake pollution by utilization of aquatic plants for nutritional, medicinal or industrial purposes. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, 30 pp.

Sullivan L, Wildova R, Goldberg D, Vogel C, 2010. Growth of three cattail (Typha) taxa in response to elevated CO2. Plant Ecology, 207(1):121-129.

Svengsouk LJ, Mitch WJ, 2001. Dramics of mixtures of Typha latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani in nutrient-enrichment wetland experiments. American Midland Naturalist, 145:309-324.

Thieret JW, Luken JO, 1996. The Typhaceae in the southeastern United States. Harvard Papers in Botany, 8:27-56.

Tsyusko OV, Smith MH, Oleksyk TK, Goryanaya J, Glenn TC, 2006. Genetics of cattails in radioactively contaminated areas around Chornobyl. Molecular Ecology, 15(9):2611-2625.

Tsyusko OV, Smith MH, Sharitz RR, Glenn TC, 2005. Genetic and clonal diversity of two cattail species, Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia (Typhaceae), from Ukraine. American Journal of Botany, 92(7):1161-1169.

Turner NJ, 1981. A gift for the taking: the untapped potential of some food plants of North American Native Peoples. Canadian Journal of Botany, 59(11):2331-2357.

Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, et al, 1980. Flora Europaea. Vol. 5: Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones) Cambridge, UK: University Press.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. In: Recovery Plan for Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis Kral). US Fish and Wildlife Service, 24 pp.

USDA-ARS, 2010. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory.

USDA-NRCS, 2010. The PLANTS Database. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center.

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

Wagner WL, Herbst DR, Sohmer SH, 1999. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawaii. Revised edition. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University of Hawaii Press/Bishop Museum Press, 1919 pp.

Waters I, Shay JM, 1990. A field study of the morphometric response of Typha glauca shoots to a water depth gradient. Canadian Journal of Botany, 68(11):2339-2343.

Waters I, Shay JM, 1992. Effect of water depth on population parameters of a Typha glauca stand. Canadian Journal of Botany, 70:349-351.

Weller MW, 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal of Research, 49(4):383-412.

Welsh SL, Atwood ND, Goodrich S, Higgins LC, 1987. A Utah Flora. Provo, Utah, USA: Brigham Young University, The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9.

Westlake DF, 1965. Some basic data for investigations of the productivity of aquatic macrophytes. Memoria del Istituto Italiano de Idrobiologia, 18 Supplement:229-248.

Westlake DF, 1968. Methods used to determine the annual production of reedswamp plants with extensive rhizomes. In: Methods of Productivity Studies in Root System and Rhizosphere Organisms [ed. by Ghilarov, M. S.\Kovda, V. A.\Novichkova-Ivanova, L. N.\Rodin, L. E.\Sveshnikova, V. M.]. Leningrad: U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, NAV-KA, 226-234.

Westlake DF, 1982. Primary production of water plants. In: Studies on Aquatic Vascular Plants [ed. by Symoens, J. J.\Hooper, F. S.\Compere, P.]. Brussels: Royal Botanical Society, 165-180.

Wieder RK, Linton MN, Heston KP, 1990. Laboratory mesocosm studies of Fe, Al, Mn, Ca, and Mg dynamics in wetlands exposed to synthetic acid coal mine drainage. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 51(1-2):181-196.

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

Zhang XH, Tapie M, Webba JB, Huang YH, Miao SL, 2008. Molecular signatures of two cattail species, Typha domingensis and Typha latifolia (Typhaceae), in South Florida. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 49:368-376.

Distribution References

Adamska I, 2012. Interesting instances of Ascomycota on Acorus, Phragmites and Typha. Phytopathologia. 19-27.

Assefa Y, Conlong D E, Mitchell A, 2006. Status of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), its host plants and natural enemies in Ethiopia. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 96 (5), 497-504.

CABI Data Mining, Undated. CAB Abstracts Data Mining.,

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Champion P D, Hofstra D E, Clayton J S, 2007. Science for Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation. 41 pp.

Global Invasive Species Database, 2006. Typha latifolia. In: Global Invasive Species Database, unpaginated.

Grace J B, Harrison J S, 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 73. Typha latifolia L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha ×glauca Godr. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 66 (2), 361-379.

Kiran G G R, Rao A S, 2013. Survey of weed flora in transplanted rice in Krishna agroclimatic zone of Andhra Pradesh, India. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 19 (1), 45-51.

Mazurkiewicz-Zapałowicz K, Ładczuk D, Wolska M, 2011. Organisms affecting the health of Typha spp. in the littoral zone of lakes in Drawa National Park (NW Poland). Phytopathologia. 17-27.

Seebens H, Blackburn T M, Dyer E E, Genovesi P, Hulme P E, Jeschke J M, Pagad S, Pyšek P, Winter M, Arianoutsou M, Bacher S, Blasius B, Brundu G, Capinha C, Celesti-Grapow L, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Fuentes N, Jäger H, Kartesz J, Kenis M, Kreft H, Kühn I, Lenzner B, Liebhold A, Mosena A (et al), 2017. No saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications. 8 (2), 14435.

Shih J G, Finkelstein S A, 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.

USA, USDA-ARS, 2010. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. In: Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database, Beltsville, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory.

USA, USDA-NRCS, 2010. The PLANTS Database. In: The PLANTS Database, Baton Rouge, LA, USA: National Plant Data Center.

Links to Websites

Top of page
Gucker CL, 200. Typha latifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System
Hawaii Invasive Species Partnership (HISP), 2008. Cattail (Typha latifolia)
Risk Assessment for Typha latifolia
The Nature Conservancy - Element Stewardship Abstract


Top of page

23/04/10 Original text by:

David Clements, Biology and Environmental Studies, Trinity Western University, 7600 Glover Road, Langley, British Columbia, V2Y 1Y1, Canada

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map
Select a dataset
Map Legends
  • CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Third party data sources: