Glyceria maxima (reed sweet-grass)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Soil Tolerances
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Glyceria maxima (Hartman) Holmburg, 1919
Preferred Common Name
- reed sweet-grass
Other Scientific Names
- Glyceria aquatica (L.) Wahlberg, 1820
- Glyceria spectabilis Mert. & W. D. J. Koch
- Molinia maxima Hartman, 1820
- Panicularia aquatica (L.) Kuntze
- Poa aquatica Linnaeus, 1753
Local Common Names
- : reed mannagrass; swamp grass; water meadow grass; water sweet-grass
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
G. maxima is an aquatic, perennial grass, which is native to temperate Europe and Asia, and an invasive species in New Zealand, Australia and North America (USDA-ARS, 2009). In the USA, it is listed as prohibited in Massachusetts and potentially invasive in Connecticut (USDA-NRCS, 2009).
Dense stands of G. maxima severely impede water flow in canals and streams, often causing local flooding and livestock to become bogged down and drown (Bartonet al., 1983). It also causes accelerated siltation resulting in a reduction of the holding capacity of farm dams (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). The ability of this vigorous invader to create monocultures is of conservation concern even in its native range (Lambert, 1947).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Monocotyledonae
- Order: Cyperales
- Family: Poaceae
- Genus: Glyceria
- Species: Glyceria maxima
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Glyercia is from the Greek glykeros, meaning ‘sweet’, and refers to the sweet taste of seeds from some species. Maxima is the superlative of the Latin magnus, meaning ‘great’ or ‘large’, inferring that this species is the largest in the genus (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). A cultivar G. maxima 'Variegata' is grown in <_st13a_place _w3a_st="on">North America.
DescriptionTop of page
G. maxima is a robust, leafy, aquatic, perennial grass that grows 90-250 cm high, with numerous vegetative shoots. Seeds germinate in spring and seedlings develop rapidly producing many vigorous shoots as well as a mat of creeping rhizomes in summer and autumn that contribute to spread beyond their periphery. During winter growth slows or ceases and then recommences in spring when both vegetative and flowering shoots are formed.
Inflorescence a loose, later dense, oblong many branched panicle, 15-45 cm long. Spikelets yellow or green tinged with purple, slightly compressed, stalked, oblong, 5-12 mm long, 2-3.5 mm wide and 4 to 10 flowered.
Seed dark brown, 1.5-2 mm long, enclosed in persistent, hardened flowering glumes. Glumes unequal, lower 2-3 mm, upper 3-4 mm, membranous, usually obtuse. Lemmas 3-4 mm long, not keeled, but with usually seven very prominent nerves. Paleas equal to lemmas or slightly shorter, boat shaped, flanges scaberulous. Lodicules fairly large, more or less connate, though generally separable. Stamens 3, anthers up to 2 mm long, yellow or purple. Styles 2, appearing to arise laterally; naked proximally, branched distally.
Root fibrous, 1-2 mm diameter, several arising from each rhizome node, extending to depths of 1 m and giving raise to laterals 1-8 cm long (Lambert, 1947; Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
Plant TypeTop of page Aquatic
Grass / sedge
DistributionTop of page
G. maxima is native to the north temperate zone of Europe and <_st13a_place _w3a_st="on">Asia. It is found as far eastward in Asia as <_st13a_country-region _w3a_st="on">Japan and the <_st13a_placename _w3a_st="on"><_st13a_place _w3a_st="on">Kamchatka<_st13a_placetype _w3a_st="on">Peninsula(Anderson and Reznicek, 1994;USDA-ARS, 2009). Several references (DPIWE, 2009; ISSG, 2009) cite that G. maxima is invasive in the <_st13a_country-region _w3a_st="on">UK; however, Lambert (1947) claims that it is native flora of the <_st13a_country-region _w3a_st="on"><_st13a_place _w3a_st="on">UK. Additionally, Stace et al. (2009) states G. maxima is “common in most of England except North, scattered in Wales, Ireland and Scotland, 1 record in Guernsey, not in North or Northwest Scotland.”
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|China||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Xinjiang||Present||Native||Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2006|
|Japan||Present||Native||Anderson and Reznicek, 1994|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Native||Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2006|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-British Columbia||Present||Introduced||Brouillet et al., 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2009|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Present||Introduced||Brouillet et al., 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2009|
|-Ontario||Present||Introduced||1940||Invasive||Brouillet et al., 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2009|
|-Quebec||Present||Introduced||Brouillet et al., 2006; USDA-NRCS, 2009|
|USA||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Introduced||1990||Invasive||Anderson and Reznicek, 1994|
|-Wisconsin||Localised||Introduced||1975||Invasive||Reed, 1987; Anderson and Reznicek, 1994||Localized in the southeast corner of Wisconsin|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Present||Native||USDA-ARS, 2009|
|Italy||Widespread||Native||Flora Italiana, 2009||Widespread, except the southwest corner|
|Russian Federation||Present||Native||USDA-ARS, 2009|
|-Western Siberia||Present||Native||Not invasive||Anderson and Reznicek, 1994||Kamchatka Peninsula|
|Sweden||Present||Larson, 2003||Native to parts of Sweden but also occurs in areas where it is non-indigenous|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Present||Native||USDA-ARS, 2009|
|Australia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Australian Northern Territory||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||Not invasive||Brown, 1929||A limited number of planting experiments proved unsuccessful|
|-New South Wales||Localised||Introduced||Invasive||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992||South western slopes of the Great Diving Range and irrigation districts|
|-South Australia||Localised||Introduced||Invasive||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992||Mount Lofty Ranges and the southeastern districts|
|-Tasmania||Present||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992||Agricultural regions, especially in the north of the state|
|-Victoria||Localised||1900s||Introduced||Invasive||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992||Found in Gippsland, the northern region (especially irrigation areas) and the Western Districts|
|-Western Australia||Localised||Introduced||Invasive||Western Australian Herbarium, 2009||Established in the southwest corner of the state|
|New Zealand||Widespread||Introduced||1904||Invasive||Allan, 1940||Established in various locations (notably Otago and Southland) on both the North and South Islands|
|Papua New Guinea||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||Not invasive||Brown, 1929||A limited number of planting experiments proved unsuccessful|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
G. maxima was widely distributed on a commercial scale in Australasia by rootstock planting in the early twentieth century (Lambert, 1947). Allan (1940) gives 1904 as the date of the first printed records of its occurrence in New Zealand. Commercial planting saw G. maxima establish in various locations (notably Otago and Southland) on both the North and South Islands, where it spread sufficiently to block waterways (Allan, 1940). The original source of G. maxima in Australia was a few plants in Victoria grown from English seed. It rapidly became established in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia where it proved vigorous enough to out-compete indigenous swamp vegetation in suitable habitats (Brown, 1929). It was later recorded in Queensland (CPBA, 2009). A limited number of planting experiments made in tropical Australia and New Guinea proved unsuccessful (Brown, 1929).
The first occurrence of G. maxima in North America dates from 1940 and comes from a marsh at the edge of Lake Ontario. Between 1940 and 1952 several more populations of this plant were located in the same region, but it is possible that G. maxima arrived some time before these records were documented. The first record of G. maxima in New England is from the Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary in Essex County, Massachusetts in 1990 (IPANE, 2009). In North America, it is now found in southern Canada, primarily in Ontario, but also Newfoundland, British Colombia, and in the USA in Alaska, Wisconsin and Massachusetts (Dore, 1947; Reed, 1987; USDA-NRCS, 2009).
IntroductionsTop of page
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
In Australia, all wetlands, shallow water bodies and the edges of rivers and creeks along the south-eastern coast and south-western corner of Australia have the potential to be invaded wherever the characteristics of the site are suitable (Loo et al., 2009a). In the USA, G. maxima is not currently present in Connecticut, but it is listed as ‘potentially invasive’.
However, dispersal pathways and vectors must be present to spread G. maxima into new regions where habitat is potentially suitable and it is difficult to estimate the time needed for this to occur. Deliberate introductions of the plant as a fodder are still possible, and accidental movement on machinery and animal hooves is a possibility. Seeds are available by mail order from the native range (Seeds-by-size, 2009). Both nursery stock and seeds for sowing are permitted into Australia (AQIS, 2009).
HabitatTop of page
Wet or occasionally winter-flooded freshwater areas along banks of slow-moving rivers, creeks, canals, drainage ditches, lakes, wetlands, ponds and farm dams, principally in temperate regions. It grows well in water up to 75 cm deep and satisfactorily even at depths of 1.5 m. In deeper water it often forms floating mats which remain attached to the banks of streams or ponds (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
In its native range, G. maxima is found growing from the lowlands up to high altitudes in the mountain areas (Peeters, 2005). Lambert (1947) suggests that “these plants are typically a freshwater species and found in the bank of slow-flowing rivers. Exhibits a considerable vertical range in relation to water level, occur vigorously both as a reed swamp plant with roots and rhizomes immersed throughout the year. However, the presence of higher internal concentration of oxygen in the roots suggests for an immediate diphenylamine tests made on soil samples containing root fragments. Reaches best development both vegetatively and in production of flowering stems, in regions where summer water table is approximately at substrate level. When growing among other tall reed swamp species, they may produce excessively long vegetative stems. At the same time they are largely limited or excluded by the mechanical conditions of the habitat, where a diurnal tidal rise and fall of 20-30cm is combined with a loose, shifting substrate. These plants are found in fully exposed situations but are tolerant to slight shade”.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Riverbanks||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Irrigation channels||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Irrigation channels||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Irrigation channels||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
|Lakes||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Reservoirs||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
|Ponds||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Reproduces by seed and rhizomes. Seeds germinate in spring and seedlings develop rapidly producing many vigorous shoots. Seeds are produced in the plants second and subsequent years. Flowering occurs in spring and summer and vast amounts of seeds are produced. These seeds have varying levels of dormancy, with the majority of seeds able to germinate immediately, whilst others are genetically bound to remain dormant for several years (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; DPIWE, 2009). Only 1-9% of the florets set good grains (Dore, 1953 in Anderson and Reznicek, 1994) and the dense cover of the matted weed also hinders the establishment of seedlings (Weiss and Iaconis, 2000).
A mat of creeping rhizomes spreads in summer and autumn. During winter growth slows or ceases and then recommences in spring when both vegetative and flowering shoots are formed. A single plant may produce up to 100 shoots and 30 m of rhizome in its first 2 years of growth. The extensive root system of G. maxima can extend to depths of 1 m. A sprawling mass of rhizomes comprise 40-55% of the plant’s total biomass. These rhizomes produce vast numbers of shoots to quickly expand the plants size (DPIWE, 2002). Plants in mature stands grow considerably slower and those in deep water, with a more anaerobic substrate, grow even more slowly and have reduced rhizome development (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
In a mesocosm experiment by Tanner (1996) it was found that shooting density increased linearly during the first 90 days of the trial, then rose sharply during the remaining 30 days of the trial, more than doubling the shoot number. A very high above-ground biomass production (3.3 kg m-2 ) was also found.
Buttery and Lambert (1964) examined the competition between G. maxima and Phragmites communis in the Surlingham Broad, England, UK. They found that where G. maxima shows maximum growth, P. communis is completely suppressed. The success of G. maxima over P. communis under such conditions appears to be due to its rapid production of an extremely dense sward in spring, before the P. communis shoots can develop. However, at the back of the fen away from the open water, P. communis was more successful than G. maxima, indicating that it has somewhat greater tolerance to the unfavourable habitat conditions.
G. maxima is tolerant of waterlogging, fire and frost and of a wide range of climatic conditions, but prefers cooler, temperate regions (Weiss and Iaconis, 2000). It can establish in minor disturbed ecosystems of permanent and seasonal wetlands.
Haslam (1978) states the nutrient requirements (p.p.m.) of G. maxima are:
G. maxima is more likely to be found on soils high in total phosphorus and nitrogen (Loo et al., 2009a). Haslam (1978) found that the grass was phosphorus limited, so it will spread only into areas with adequate phosphorus levels. G. maxima is only tolerant of light shade (Lambert, 1947; Loo et al., 2009b).
ClimateTop of page
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Ds - Continental climate with dry summer||Preferred||Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Soil TolerancesTop of page
- seasonally waterlogged
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Seeds may be moved in mud or on animal fur or hooves, on footwear, machinery or other vehicles (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
G. maxima was widely distributed on a commercial scale in Australasia by rootstock planting in the early twentieth century (Lambert, 1947).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Crop production||Yes||Yes||LAMBERT, 1947|
|Flooding and other natural disasters||Moved in flowing water||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Interconnected waterways||Moved in flowing water||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Internet sales||Yes||eBay, 2009; Seeds-by-size, 2009|
|Nursery trade||Seedlings sold in Victoria in the 1940s||Yes||Yes||Gippsland and Northern Co-operative CoLtd, 1940|
|Seed trade||Seed sold in Victoria in the 1940s||Yes||Yes||Gippsland and Northern Co-operative CoLtd, 1940|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||Potential to move seed||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Land vehicles||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Livestock||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Machinery and equipment||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
|Water||Yes||Yes||Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Economic/livelihood||Positive and negative|
|Environment (generally)||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
In its natural range G. maxima can be readily consumed by cattle and is considered a nutritious fodder. However, in southeastern Australia and New Zealand it accumulates toxic levels of hydrocyanic acid which has resulted in the cyanide poisoning of livestock (Barton, 1983; Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). In South Gippsland both beef and dairy cattle deaths in spring have been attributed to G. maxima. Cyanic compounds are highly present in the vegetative tillers of the plant, only slightly in the flowering culms and not in the seeds (Barton, 1983). Additionally, Sharman (1968; cited in Barton 1983) found that the cyanide content of G. maxima varied greatly with season, peaking in spring when the grass was growing fastest and rising again in autumn. Given that G. maxima is not a preferred fodder source in Australasia, infestations result in a loss of area for nutritious fodder. Livestock have also become bogged down and drowned when attempting to reach water through dense infestations (Melbourne Water, 2003).
G. maxima can adversely affect water quality by making the water putrid and unusable. Farmers have had to relocate pumps after infested springs become polluted and cattle refuse to drink the water (Melbourne Water, 2003).The holding capacity of farm dams can be significantly reduced due to siltation. In dense stands it severely impedes water flow in canals, drainage ditches and streams, often causing local flooding (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). There can be significant costs to landholders and waterway managers trying to control G. maxima using either chemical control or mechanical removal.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Habitats
Impact on Biodiversity
The ability of this vigorous invader to create monocultures is of conservation concern even in its native range (Lambert, 1947). The spread of G. maxima in England, UK, reduced the number of seed-producing plants (particularly of the Cyperaceae and Polygonaceae) available to winter feeding ducks. G. maxima is reported to be a poor food plant for grazing waterfowl and a poor nesting substrate for many common wetland species (Burgess et al., 1990). Native to parts of Sweden but also occurs in areas where it is non-indigenous. In its introduced range it is seen to form dense stands which impact on native vegetation (Larson, 2003).
Impacts of G. maxima on native biota and ecosystems in the invaded range are poorly explored, but Clarke et al., (2004) found that streams invaded by G. maxima in S. Australia had lower compositional diversity of stream macroinvertebrates, with a shift from ‘shredders’ to ‘collector/filterers’.
In New Zealand, Taylor and Kelly (2001) found that G. maxima is proving to be a national threat to the whitebait (Galaxias maculatus) spawning grounds. G. maxima does not provide the right kind of micro-habitat required for whitebait spawning as the weed clogs waterways and has displaced tall fescue grass from riparian zones which would have been suitable spawning grounds.
Social ImpactTop of page
G. maxima is unlikely to have any serious affect on cultural heritage sites, but dense infestations may have a negative visual effect, ruining the aesthetic appeal of waterbodies. Clarke et al. (2004) recorded that G. maxima may convert sections of fast-flowing streams into anaerobic, swampy environments. Such a dramatic change could affect recreational fishing as downstream fish habitat would be significantly affected by reduced water flow. Dense infestations may also diminish recreational opportunities as swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational activities may be restricted.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Long lived
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Reproduces asexually
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Modification of hydrology
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Modification of nutrient regime
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition - smothering
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
G. maxima is used to treat sewage water in Europe and New Zealand because it has a high capacity to uptake nutrients (Ozimek and Klekot, 1979; Sundblad and Robertson, 1988; Sunblad and Wittgren, 1989; Tanner, 1996). As it slows water movement it can be useful for reducing erosion of riverbanks (Gippsland and Northern Co-operative Co. Ltd., 1940; DPIWE, 2009).
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
- Seed trade
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
G. maxima is similar to Glyceria grandis, the American mannagrass, which is native to <_st13a_place _w3a_st="on">North America (IPANE, 2009). Dore and McNeil (1980) provide one of the few keys among North American manuals which distinguishes G. maxima from G. grandis. They separate G. maxima by the length of the lower glume (2-3 mm versus 1.2 -1.5 mm in G. grandis). It is distinguished from other European species by its firmly erect stems. Others are generally decumbent and/or submerged.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Forecasts of the potential distribution of G. maxima can help to identify areas susceptible to invasion. The forecasts can inform decision-making for prevention schemes and assist targeted field sampling for the development of monitoring programmes and allow prioritization of control methods. Forecasts of the potential distribution of G. maxima in Australia have been undertaken by Loo et al. (2009a) and Weiss and Iaconis (2000). In New Zealand, the government is establishing a border control programme for aquatic plants that have the potential to become ecological weeds in New Zealand. The programme includes weed risk models that incorporate forecasts of the potential distribution, and an Aquatic Plant Weed Risk Assessment Model (Champion and Clayton, 2000, 2001).
Loo et al. (2009) found that the presence of G. maxima was negatively correlated with the amount of woody riparian vegetation. Riparian shading limits the spread and abundance of aquatic macrophytes, and G. maxima is only tolerant of light shade (Lambert, 1947; Bunn et al., 1998). Hence, the policy and management actions to maintain or restore riparian zones are likely to assist in the prevention of the spread of G. maxima.
The prevention of aquatic weed spread is the responsibility of all individuals and groups. Examples of prevention methods:
Increased community awareness of the issue will be essential for successful control of aquatic weed species. The “Clean, Check, Dry principles” should be promoted to all users of waterbodies (DOC, 2009).
Early detection and confinement of new satellite populations are crucial, and will be possible only through targeted monitoring, and these monitoring systems need to be implemented using designs that recognize multiscale relationships (Mack, 2000; Olckers, 2004). A community-based weed detection network could play an important role in the early detection of new populations.
Mechanical removal, such as excavation or hand pulling, can be used to control G. maxima, but may be ineffective if the entire rhizome system is not removed (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Manual removal works best with small plants. Excavation is not a preferred management approach for waterways because using heavy equipment may damage the structure of the waterway (Weiss and Iaconis, 2000). Excavation is more suitable for use on farm dams and can be useful at reducing the size of large infestations, allowing easier follow up by manual removal of small plants and regrowth. Excavated material should be dumped well away from the area at a site where it can dry out and kill all plants.
Black plastic used to smother the grass was 100% effective in Massachusetts, USA. However, this method is not feasible over large areas (Rawinski, undated, in Martin, 2009). Cutting may reduce populations of reed sweet-grass by allowing sunlight to reach other, competitive plants. Multiple cuttings (more than three) may reduce the amount of carbohydrates stored in the rhizomes. Cutting during the autumn months when carbohydrates and nutrients are stored for the winter may affect spring regrowth (Sundblad and Robertson, 1988).
G. maxima can be almost controlled or in some instances completely eradicated using herbicides, such as glyphosate or dalapon, which are translocated through all parts of the plant. Trials in Tasmania, showed G. maxima was eradicated by glyphosate when applied in autumn, and was almost completely controlled by dalapon 5 and 10 kg/ha + paraquat (Tasmanian Department of Agriculture, 1976). In the UK, glyphosate applied in summer and autumn gave almost total control (Barrett, 1976). In Holland, the application of dalapon + Amitrol-T (aminotriazole + ammonium thiocyanate) and glyphosate in early autumn completely killed the foliage, although glyphosate was slower acting (Stryckers and van Himme, 1974).
When using herbicides on G. maxima, a complete coverage of all foliage is necessary. Care must be taken in choosing and applying herbicides near waterways as to not impact upon the resident organisms (DPIWE, 2009). The glyphosate-based Roundup bioactive™ is the recommended herbicide because it is safe for use in or near waterways (Caffrey, 1996). Glyphosate should be applied in late summer and autumn, when the plants are in full flower. Where practical, the water level should be lowered to maximise plant exposure before treatment (Paterson and Cuthbertson, 1992; DPIWE, 2009).
However, chemical controls can have disadvantages. The mass of decaying vegetation that remains after treatment reduces the holding capacity of the waterway and the anaerobic decomposition of the material may render the water foul and unfit for use. In such cases mechanical removal of the plant material will be required. The disturbed space created after treatment provides ideal conditions for invasion by other weeds or by a re-infestation of G. maxima.
G. maxima is sensitive to shade and appears to be out-competed once there is adequate cover of overstorey vegetation. The restoration of native riparian vegetation may be an effective long-term means of controlling invasive aquatic macrophytes, such as G. maxima.
Aquatic weed management requires an integrated catchment approach that recognizes the role that anthropogenic environmental change (such as the removal of riparian vegetation and increased soil nutrient content) has played in the spread of aquatic weed species (Loo et al., 2009a).
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
Greater information on the ecological impacts of G. maxima in the invaded range is required.
There is limited information on the impacts of G. maxima on waterfowl from its native range and none from the invaded range. There is only one study on the impacts on macroinvertebrates (from Australia) (Clarke et al., 2004) and only one study on the impact on fish (from New Zealand) (Taylor and Kelly, 2001).
ReferencesTop of page
AQIS, 2009. ICON - import conditions database. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. unpaginated. http://www.aqis.gov.au/icon32/asp/ex_QueryResults.asp?Commodity=glyceria&Area=All+Countries&EndUse=All+End+Uses&QueryType=Search
Bunn SE; Davies PM; Kellaway DM; Prosser IP, 1998. Influence of invasive macrophytes on channel morphology and hydrology in an open tropical lowland stream, and potential control by riparian shading. Freshwater Biology, 39(1):171-178.
Clarke A; Lake PS; O'Dowd DJ, 2004. Ecological impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates following upland stream invasion by a ponded pasture grass (Glyceria maxima) in southern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 55(7):709-713.
CPBA, 2009. Australia's virtual herbarium. Australia's virtual herbarium. Canberra, Australia: Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian Government, unpaginated. http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/cgi-bin/avhxml.cgi
DOC, 2009. Help stop the spread of freshwater weeds. Help stop the spread of freshwater weeds., New Zealand: Department of Conservation, unpaginated. http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/threats-and-impacts/weeds/freshwater-weeds/
DPIWE, 2009. Weeds, pests and diseases: Glyceria/reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima - poa aquatica [Hartm.] Holmb.). Weeds, pests and diseases: Glyceria/reed sweet grass (Glyceria maxima - poa aquatica [Hartm.] Holmb.). Tasmania, Australia: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, unpaginated. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZV7D8?open
IPANE (Invasive Plant Atlas of New England), 2009. Glyceria maxima (reed mannagrass, reed sweetgrass). Glyceria maxima (reed mannagrass, reed sweetgrass). University of Connecticut, unpaginated. http://nbii-nin.ciesin.columbia.edu/ipane/icat/browse.do?specieId=54
Larson D, 2003. Predicting the threats to ecosystem function and economy of alien vascular plants in freshwater environments. Literature review. Predicting the threats to ecosystem function and economy of alien vascular plants in freshwater environments. Literature review. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Loo SE; MacNally R; O'Dowd DJ; Lake PS, 2009. Secondary invasions: implications of riparian restoration for in-stream invasion by an aquatic grass. Restoration Ecology, 17(3):378-385. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/rec
Loo SE; Nally RM; O'Dowd DJ; Thomson JR; Lake PS, 2009. Multiple scale analysis of factors influencing the distribution of an invasive aquatic grass. Biological Invasions, 11(8):1903-1912. http://www.springerlink.com/content/wn67q760w336876j/fulltext.html
Mack RN, 2000. Assessing the extent, status and dynamism of plant invasions: current and emerging approaches. In: Invasive species in a changing world [ed. by Mooney, H. A.\Hobbs, R. J.]. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press, 141-168.
Martin T, 2009. Glyceria maxima. Global invasive species team, the nature conservancy. Glyceria maxima. Global invasive species team, the nature conservancy. unpaginated. http://wiki.bugwood.org/Glyceria_maxima
Olckers T, 2004. Targeting emergent weeds for biological control in South Africa: the benefits of halting the spread of alien plants at an early stage of their invasion. South African Journal of Science, 100:64-68.
Stryckers J; Van Himme M, 1974. Control of Glyceria maxima - review of the results obtained for the cropping year 1972-74. Control of Glyceria maxima - review of the results obtained for the cropping year 1972-74., Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit, unpaginated.
Taylor MJ; Kelly GR, 2001. Inanga spawning habitats in the Wellington. Wellington regional council. Inanga spawning habitats in the Wellington. Wellington regional council. unpaginated. [NIWA Client Report: CHC01/67.] http://gw.govt.nz/council- publications/pdfs/Environment%20Management_20021022_163731.pdf
USDA-ARS, 2009. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
Weiss JER; Iaconis LJ, 2000. Glyceria maxima, reed sweet-grass: an assessment of weed potential for Melbourne water. Glyceria maxima, reed sweet-grass: an assessment of weed potential for Melbourne water. Melbourne, Australia: Keith Turnbull Research Institute, unpaginated.
Western Australian Herbarium, 2009. Florabase - the Western Australian flora. Florabase - the Western Australian flora. Western, Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation, unpaginated. http://florabase.calm.wa.gov.au/browse/map/437
ContributorsTop of page
10/09/09 Original text by:
Sarina Loo, Sustainable Water, Environment & Innovation Division, Dept. of Sustainability and Environment, Level 12, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne VIC 3002, Australia
Distribution MapsTop of page
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/