Fs - Fed.us-Typha Latifolia

Typha latifolia
fs.fed.us /database/feis/plants/graminoid/typlat/all.html
INTRODUCTORY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

Gucker, Corey L. 2008. Typha latifolia. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2017, October 29].
FEIS ABBREVIATION:
TYPLAT
NRCS PLANT CODE [212]:

TYLA
COMMON NAMES:
broadleaf cattail
cattail
common cattail
soft-flag
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of broadleaf cattail is Typha latifolia L. (Typhaceae) [58,107]. In this review, cattail (Typha
spp.) refers to the genus or more than 1 cattail species.
Hybrids: Broadleaf cattail hybridizes with both other North American cattail species, narrow-leaved cattail (T.
angustifolia) and southern cattail (T. domingensis), where distributions overlap. Hybrid swarms of all 3 species
have been identified in central California. T × glauca has been used to describe both broadleaf cattail × narrow-
leaved cattail and broadleaf cattail × southern cattail hybrids [36,72,107,143,194,227]. In this review, hybrids are
identified with both parent names.
SYNONYMS:
None
LIFE FORM:
Graminoid
1/49
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
Information on state-level protected status of plants in the United States is available at Plants Database.
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Typha latifolia
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Broadleaf cattail is a cosmopolitan species found in North America, Mexico, Great Britain, Eurasia, India, Africa,
New Zealand, and Australia. In Canada, broadleaf cattail occurs in all provinces and the Northwest Territories
[76]. In the United States, broadleaf cattail is native to all states except Hawaii, where it is introduced [212]. It
also occurs in Puerto Rico; nativity to Puerto Rico is unknown [107]. Flora of North America provides a
distributional map of broadleaf cattail.
Cattail hybrids are often identifiable by their distribution. Distributions of all 3 hybridizing cattail species overlap
in only the east-central US coast and central California. Broadleaf cattail and southern cattail cooccur in a broad
area of the southwestern United States and the extreme southern United States. Broadleaf cattail and narrow-
leaved cattail distribution overlaps are more common and cover a broad area of the central and eastern United
States and Canada. Cattail distribution maps are provided by Smith [194].
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

Broadleaf cattail is typical of early-seral, open-canopy communities. It occurs immediately or soon after
disturbance in moist or wet habitats and occurs early in the primary succession of open water or debris flows. In
forested habitats, broadleaf cattail persists only temporarily in disturbed sites. Broadleaf cattail occurred with up
to 39% cover after a severe fire in pondcypress (Taxodium distichum var. imbricarium) domes near Gainesville,
Florida. Five years after the fire, broadleaf cattail cover ranged from 0% to 5% [54].
Often wetlands are dominated by one or just a few clonal species occurring in zones or concentric rings that are
largely determined by flooding and water level tolerances [41,146,209]. Numerous wetland plant communities
and habitat types are described, and broadleaf cattail is often recognized as a dominant species.
United States:
Alaska:
broadleaf cattail floating wet mat communities in the northwestern part of Tanana Flats south of Fairbanks
[174]
California:
bulrush (Scirpus spp.)-cattail tule marshes common in the Central Valley [ 24]
brackish hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus)-broadleaf cattail marshes common in
San Francisco Bay [137]
tule marshes along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers; marshes part of wet grasslands Forest and
Range Ecosystem No. 41 [67]
tule marsh potential natural vegetation type [115]
2/49
tule marsh and cattail-sedge (Carex spp.) communities; variants of the wetland Rangeland Cover Type
(Cheatham and Haller, cited in [2])
Colorado:
softstem bulrush (S. tabernaemontani)-broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail wetlands throughout the
state (references in [8])
Florida:
floating island type vegetation dominated by beggarticks (Bidens spp.), broadleaf cattail, and smartweed
(Polygonum spp.) in Orange Lake in Alachua County [ 139]
broadleaf cattail marshes and cattail associations near brackish water in southern Florida [41]
Idaho:
broadleaf cattail habitat types along ponds and reservoirs at elevations of 2,980 to 5,740 feet (909-1,750
m) in the east [86]
broadleaf cattail plant associations throughout the state [104]
broadleaf cattail-softstem bulrush marshes in the Chilly Slough Wetland Conservation Area in Custer
County [237]
Illinois:
broadleaf cattail-tussock sedge (Carex stricta) communities along creek borders in Cook County's Bluff
Spring Fen Nature Preserve [200]
broadleaf cattail dominated marshes in the Gavin Bog and Prairie Nature Preserve in Lake County [204]
Kansas:
softstem bulrush-cattail-bur-reed-rush (Sparganium-Juncus spp.) in swales and river system depressions;

southern and narrow-leaved cattail possible, broadleaf cattail probable
cattail-Olney threesquare (Scirpus americanus) in oxbows and low areas along creeks and streams; all
cattail species possible
cattail-scouringrush horsetail-sedge (Equisetum hyemale) on hillsides and bluffs in river valleys; broadleaf
and/or narrow-leaved cattail may dominate [123]
Louisiana:
broadleaf cattail-California bulrush (S. californicus) associations in southeastern freshwater marshes

[171]
Montana:
broadleaf cattail herblands in riparian areas [12]
broadleaf cattail habitat types in northwestern Montana [18] and central and eastern Montana [90]
Nebraska:
annual wildrice (Zizania aquatica)-broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail-hardstem bulrush communities in
Cherry County [209]
New Mexico:
3/49
broadleaf cattail-Olney threesquare and broadleaf cattail-rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides) community
types in the upper and/or middle Rio Grande watersheds [52]
broadleaf cattail-common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens var. pungens) communities widespread

in Pecos and Rio Grande basins, likely throughout New Mexico
softstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail vegetation throughout New Mexico [160]
Nevada:
broadleaf cattail western herbaceous vegetation type within the cattail-bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.)
semipermanently flooded herbaceous alliance [165]
tule marshes around large lakes; marshes part of wet grasslands forest and range ecosystem No. 41 [67]
North Carolina:
broadleaf cattail-rush-Jamaica swamp sawgrass (Cladium mariscus subsp. jamaicense) and rush-
broadleaf cattail-Virginia saltmarsh mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica) freshwater marsh communities on
Shackleford Bank [7]
interdune pond communities (vegetation varies with water depth)
broadleaf cattail-black rush (Juncus roemerianus) tidal freshwater marsh communities [184]
cattail-bulrush hydric freshwater marsh associations on the Coastal Plain; broadleaf and narrow-leaved
cattail common [226]
Oklahoma:
broadleaf cattail herbaceous vegetation associations on floodplains, backswamps, and lake margins
broadleaf cattail-powdery alligator-flag (Thalia dealbata) associations in marshes, ponds and on lake
margins in eastern and central Oklahoma [100]
Pennsylvania:
broadleaf cattail palustrine emergent wetland vegetation types in Gettysburg National Military Park [236]
Utah:
hardstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail marshes around Utah Lake in Provo Bay and Powell's Slough [21]
tule marshes on old beds of the Great Salt Lake; marshes part of wet grasslands Forest and Range
Ecosystem No. 41 [67]
Washington:
hardstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail communities in ponds with 1- to 3-foot (0.3-0.9 m) deep water in
steppe vegetation in the Columbia Basin [39,61]
broadleaf cattail plant associations in eastern National Forests [113]
broadleaf cattail-toad rush (Juncus bufonius) community types in narrow seeps on the Pumice Plains of
Mount St Helens [43]
West Virginia:
broadleaf cattail-bog goldenrod/sphagnum (Solidago uliginosa/Sphagnum recurvum-S. imbricatum)

communities in Laurel Run Bog
4/49
broadleaf cattail/bristly dewberry/recurved sphagnum (Rubus hispidus/S. recurvum) communities in Cupp
Run Swamp [217]
Wyoming:
broadleaf cattail cover types on wet or moist sites throughout the state [32]
Western and central United States and Canada:
broadleaf cattail community types at low elevations of Utah and southeastern Idaho [176]
semiaquatic wetlands of the rooted emergent class dominated by broadleaf cattail and hardstem bulrush
in Idaho and western Montana [173]
broadleaf cattail types in semipermanently and saturated palustrine wetlands in the prairie potholes of
north-central United States and south-central Canada [106]
broadleaf cattail/broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) plant associations in Wyoming, Nebraska, and
Colorado [105]
broadleaf cattail marshes in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico
bulrush-cattail marshes in the northern Great Plains (Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, and North and
South Dakota)
Olney threesquare-cattail communities in the central and southern Great Plains (Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas); broadleaf, narrow-leaved, and southern cattail possible
cattail-American lotus (Nelumbo lutea) in Oklahoma and Texas; broadleaf and southern cattail common
[186]
Canada:
Alberta:
softstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail reed swamp associations of large sloughs and lakes in central Alberta
[130]
British Columbia:
broadleaf cattail marsh associations in the Cariboo Forest Region [196]
Ontario:
broadleaf cattail vegetation types in marshes along the Ottawa River between Ontario and Quebec [42]
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

This description provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification.
Keys for identification are available (e.g., [46,58,71,82,103,172,180,216]).
Aboveground description: Broadleaf cattail is an aquatic or semiaquatic emergent perennial. Morphological

and physiological ecotypes as well as hybrids make field identification difficult [82]. Plants are normally 3 to 10
feet (1-3 m) tall, reedlike, and extensively clonal [98,122,172]. Broadleaf cattail stems are stout, cylindrical, and
unbranched [5,172]. Flowering stem length is typically equal to or somewhat longer than leaf length [143].
5/49
Leaves are thick, linear, flat, and measure 6 to 29 mm wide [5,98]. For plants from Michigan and the
southeastern United States, the upper limit of leaf width is less, 15 mm [72,216]. Broadleaf cattail can be highly
productive. In a single growing season, a plant grown from seed produced 34 aerial shoots that were 18 to 24
inches (46-61 cm) tall, 29 shoots that were 4 to 18 inches (10-46 cm) tall, 35 shoots measuring 2 to 4 inches (5-
10 cm), and 104 lateral buds [238].
Numerous tiny, dense, felty flowers occur in a terminal spike that is 0.7 to 2 inches (1.8-5 cm) thick
[46,110,143,172]. Male flowers make up the upper, narrower half of the spike and female flowers the lower,
slightly wider half [82,108]. Over 1,000 flowers were counted in the staminate spike portion of one plant [98].
Male and female spikes are rarely separated. A small space of less than 0.6 inch (1.5 cm) may occur [82,108],
but separations of up to 1.5 inches (4 cm) are also reported [82]. Some systematists recognize plants with
separated male and female spikes as form ambigua [187,216]. Spikes are typically 6 times as long as they are
thick [46,110,143,172]. Only female flowers are persistent [143,172]. Fertilized flowers produce single-seeded,
nutlike achenes up to 1.5 mm long [122,227]. Long slender hairs at the base allow for wind and water transport
of the "eventually dehiscent" seeds [99,172].
Belowground description:
Floras from throughout broadleaf cattail's range describe its rhizomes as tough, stout, coarse, and
extensive [36,98,99,172]. Rhizomes grow horizontally just below the soil surface [ 82]. In a review,
lateral rhizomes were reportedly up to 28 inches (70 cm) long, with diameters of 0.2 to 1.2 inches
(0.5-3 cm) [76]. Shallow fibrous roots are attached to the rhizomes [10,47].
© 2003
Some indicate that broadleaf cattail produces 2 types of rhizomes; one that is "more superficial", George
thin, "feathery", and multibranched, and another that is deeper, thicker, and branching at the base W.
[181]. Rhizome growth and depth are likely affected by substrate texture, moisture, and/or Hartwell
temperature. In the Skokie Marsh of Illinois, the thickest broadleaf cattail rhizomes were 3 to 3.9
inches (7.5-10 cm) deep [190]. From an alluvial basin in central Iowa, long, stout broadleaf cattail
rhizomes occurred at 6- to 8-inch (15-20 cm) depths. Rhizomes were soft and spongy, with internal
air spaces [96]. For more on vegetative growth, see Vegetative regeneration.
Variation/hybrids: Differences in productivity, height, flowering, and other developmental characteristics were
evident when broadleaf cattail seeds were collected from various parts of the United States and grown in a
common area [147]. High levels of ecotypic variation and the widespread cooccurrence of 2 to 3 compatible
cattail species can make field identification difficult. Goodrich and Neese [73] provide specific local information
useful in distinguishing broadleaf cattail from similar-looking sympatric species. Broadleaf cattail × southern
cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail hybrids are described in the following references:
[36,56,58,82,91,140]. Often broadleaf cattail hybrids are distinguished by their distribution. For more
information, see General Distribution.
Broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail hybrids, often referred to as T × glauca, have been described as more
"robust" and "competitively superior" than either parent in fluctuating water levels, although hybrids are infertile
and reproduce only vegetatively [122,216]. Invasiveness of broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail is discussed
briefly in Other Management Considerations [234].
RAUNKIAER [177] LIFE FORM:

Geophyte
Helophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Broadleaf cattail regenerates vegetatively through rhizome sprouts and sexually through seed germination [189].
Pollination: Female broadleaf cattail flowers mature before male flowers, making cross pollination possible or
even likely [10,82].
Breeding system: Broadleaf cattail is monoecious [5,72]. Heterozygosity and polymorphism levels suggest
extremely low genetic variation in broadleaf cattail stands, but genetic differentiation exists between stands;
ramets within a site are more similar than those between sites. Researchers indicate that self pollination and
6/49
clonal growth have increased the genetic homogeneity of stands while increasing genetic differences between
sites. Increased genetic diversity of broadleaf cattail occurred at the most polluted sites along a transect from
Louisville, Kentucky, to Circleville, Ohio. Researchers were not sure that pollution levels caused the genetic
differences [109].
Seed production: When broadleaf cattail flowers, abundant seed production is possible. A review reports that
typically more than half of pollinated flowers set seed [102]. In controlled conditions, broadleaf cattail grown from
seed produced flowers early in the second year of growth. From 10 spikes that averaged 7 inches (18 cm) long,
an average of over 222,000 seeds/spike was produced [238].
Many studies report poor flower production by broadleaf cattail. Sexual reproduction was rare in broadleaf cattail
vegetation on the west side of Lawrence Lake in south-central Barry County, Michigan. Of 1,779 marked shoots
studied over 3 years, only 3 flowered [45]. Degree of shading or depth of submergence may affect flowering. In
broadleaf cattail monocultures in experimental ponds at the University of Arkansas, broadleaf cattail flowered
only when roots were not submerged. Researchers suggested that self shading in dense stands may inhibit
flowering [75]. In a manmade pond at Michigan's W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, the percentage of broadleaf
cattail flowering in a single year in September varied with water level. Unsubmerged plants did not flower. When
submerged under 6 inches (15 cm) of water, 33% flowered, and in 20 inches (50 cm) of water, 11% flowered
[80]. Perhaps a water level influence on flowering is related to the nonflooded or barely flooded conditions
necessary for successful seed germination. For additional information on this topic, see Germination.
Seed dispersal: Broadleaf cattail seeds are transported by wind, water, and substrate movement. Achenes have
numerous long slender hairs at the base that allow fruits to float on water and blow in the wind [172], and some
report that achenes split or burst when they contact water [92,98]. Broadleaf cattail produces abundant seeds
[58]. A review describes the release of broadleaf cattail fruits from the spike. When fruits are dry, protective
portions of the pistil shrivel and hairs on the achene spread. Spreading hairs produce pressure that bursts
inflorescences and releases fruits into the air [102]. Wind dispersal distances of broadleaf cattail seeds collected
in Hockessin, Delaware, were calculated from timed descents made indoors. Seed mass averaged 0.05 mg.
Seeds fell at 0.13 m/s, and the estimated lateral distance traveled in a 10 km/h wind was 154 feet (46.9 m) [144].
Seeds are also dispersed through soil movement when mud clings to animals or people [47]. Seeds may also be
transported with portions of broadleaf cattail clones that are torn by wind, water, ice, or animals [6]. Often seeds
remain attached to spikes through the winter and are dispersed in the spring, and in some cases seeds fail to
disperse. Apfelbaum [6] observed submerged cattail spikes with hundreds of nearby seedlings.
Seed banking: Broadleaf cattail produces a persistent seed bank. Although there are no reports of how long
broadleaf cattail seed remains viable in the soil, its emergence from soils in late-seral forests that have long
been unsuitable broadleaf cattail habitat suggests long-term persistence or long-distance dispersal. In
Washington, a small percentage of field-collected broadleaf cattail seed germinated after being stored in a
freshwater canal for 60 months [33]. While dense broadleaf cattail seedlings often emerged from sites where
broadleaf cattail was important [126,210], there were exceptions [48,210]. Most of the studies below used the
emergence method to determine the density of broadleaf cattail seed in the soil. This method requires, but rarely
assures, that ideal broadleaf cattail germination conditions are provided.
Depth, season, and vegetation type: Broadleaf cattail emergence from soil collected in the Hamilton Marshes of
New Jersey's Delaware River wetlands varied with season of collection, depth of burial, and vegetation type.
Through field experiments, researchers determined that more than half of broadleaf cattail emergents came from
persistent seed banks and not recent seed rain. The greatest number of broadleaf cattail seedlings (15,060/m²)
emerged from the top 0.8 inch (2 cm) of soil collected in March from vegetation dominated by calamus (Acorus
calamus) and broadleaf cattail. Soils collected in June from the same depth and vegetation type had 2,340/m²
broadleaf cattail seedlings emerge. There were 5,060/m² and 2,150/m² broadleaf cattail seedlings in the top 0.8
inch of soils collected in March and June, respectively, in shrublands dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum),
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and alder (Alnus spp.). Broadleaf cattail seedling emergence decreased with
increasing soil depths, and no seedlings emerged from soil samples taken from depths greater than 5.9 inches
(15 cm). More seedlings emerged on unprotected sites (53,000/m²) than on sites with seed rain excluded
7/49
(38,700/m²). Although differences were not significant (P>0.05) [126], they suggest a persistent seed bank. For
additional information on Leck and Simpson's [126] study, see Germination and Seedling establishment/growth.
High levels of seedlings or germinants are not always recovered from soils where broadleaf cattail is important.
Few broadleaf cattails germinated from soils collected in eastern Tennessee mixed-deciduous forests. Soil
samples collected in the spring from a site where broadleaf cattail frequency was 70% had 27±10 (SE) broadleaf
cattail germinants. No seedlings germinated from summer-collected soils. From a site where broadleaf cattail
frequency was 10%, there was only 1 germinant/m² from spring-collected soils [48].
Newly-colonized sites: Broadleaf cattail seed was recovered from new substrates resulting from the eruption of
Mount St Helens. Seed banks develop soon after broadleaf cattail colonization [238]. In late September, soil
samples were collected from newly-developed wetlands. No broadleaf cattail seedlings emerged from soil
collected in wetlands where broadleaf cattail cover averaged 60%. In a wetland where broadleaf cattail cover
averaged 90%, 126±145 (SD) seedlings/m² emerged from the top 2 inches (5 cm) of soil, and 1,088±1,609
seedlings/m² emerged from 2- to 4-inch (5-10 cm) depths. No broadleaf cattail seedlings emerged from soil
samples that were not cold stratified. Researchers suspected that soil samples contained more broadleaf cattail
seed than what emerged and that germination conditions were not ideal in the greenhouse [210].
Disturbed and late-seral forests: In south-central British Columbia, broadleaf cattail seeds emerged from
undisturbed, 1-year-old "lightly burned", and 1-year-old clearcut Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests,
although broadleaf cattail was not part of the existing vegetation. Broadleaf cattail seedlings emerged from soil
samples collected from 5% of the quadrats in the undisturbed area, from 5% of lightly-burned quadrats, and from
2% of clearcut quadrats [195]. Few broadleaf cattail seedlings also emerged from the litter or top 0.8 inch (2 cm)
of soil collected from 130- to 175-year-old mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon's Blue Mountains, although
broadleaf cattail was not present in study plots or adjacent areas. Researchers suggested that broadleaf cattail
seed survives in the soil until conditions are conducive to germination, allowing broadleaf cattail to rapidly occupy
disturbed sites [202]. Low numbers of broadleaf cattail seedlings also emerged from soil collected in mature
Douglas-fir and fir (Abies spp.) forests averaging 88 years or older in central Idaho [114].
Germination: Specific requirements necessary for broadleaf cattail germination are difficult to ascertain.
Experimental studies indicate that light and warm temperatures are necessary for broadleaf cattail seed
germination. However, studies involving flooding, leaf litter extract, and stratification effects on seed have
produced conflicting results.
Broadleaf cattail seeds collected for 3 years from populations at 8,500 feet (2,600 m) elevation near Grand Lake,
Colorado, failed to germinate. Researchers noted that broadleaf cattail had occupied the site for at least 12 years
and that vegetative growth was vigorous [149]. Reasons for the variability in germination potential, requirements,
and tolerances are unknown. Possibly broadleaf cattail seed viability is temporally, environmentally, ecotypically,
and/or genotypically variable.
Cold stratification: As part of an extensive study of broadleaf cattail ecotypic population differences, McNaughton
[147] found that broadleaf cattail seeds did not require a cold period before germinating, but the lowest
temperature at which 50% germination occurred was lower in southern than northern populations. Broadleaf
cattail seeds collected in soils from newly-developed wetlands on Mount St Helens only germinated in soils that
were stratified (37 °F (3 °C)) for 12 weeks. No seedlings emerged in unstratified wetland soils [210].
Salinity: Choudhuri [27] found that broadleaf cattail germination percentages decreased with increasing salinity.
No seeds germinated above 1 atm of osmotic pressure in natural salinity. For additional information on broadleaf
cattail's tolerance of salt as a juvenile and adult plant, see Soil salinity.
Light, pH, temperature, oxygen, and ash: Broadleaf cattail seeds germinate best in warm temperatures and high
light conditions [19,191,224]. Seeds germinate in acid, basic, or neutral pH conditions, and ash extracts have
increased broadleaf cattail germination [178]. Reduced oxygen levels through the manipulation of gases in the
air or through submersion have also increased broadleaf cattail germination success [191].
Broadleaf cattail seeds collected from North Bay Park on Ford Lake Reservoir shores in Washtenaw County,
8/49
Michigan, germinated better in light than in dark conditions, better at 77 °F (25 °C) than at 68 °F (20 °C), and
better when submerged than when exposed. Exposed seed germination, regardless of temperature or light
exposure, ranged from 0.8% to 5%. Germination was best, 79.2%, when seeds were submerged, in the light,
and kept at 77 °F (25 °C) [224].
Germination increased with increasing temperatures for broadleaf cattail seeds collected in May and October
from Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, Minnesota. Maximum germination percentages occurred at the
maximum temperature tested, 95 °F (35 °C). No seeds germinated at 50 °F (10 °C). Seeds exposed to cold
temperatures before exposure to 95 °F (35 °C) temperatures had lower germination percentages than seeds
kept at room temperature. Germination did not occur when seeds were exposed to low oxygen levels of 1.0
mg/L, and at least 10 hours of continuous red light was required for maximum germination. Researchers
suggested that broadleaf cattail germination in the field would be most likely at the surface of saturated soils [19].
Optimum broadleaf cattail germination temperatures were 77 to 86 °F (25-30 °C), and seed crops responded
differently to reduced and normal oxygen levels in studies conducted in Ontario. Germination rates were slower
and percentages were reduced at 68 °F (20 °C) and 95 °F (35 °C). Seeds immersed in water germinated better
than those kept moist. When moist seeds were exposed to reduced oxygen levels (2%), germination
percentages equaled those of immersed seeds. Light exposure increased germination. The light intensity
required for germination was low, but critical intensities varied with individual seeds. Seeds in full light had 99%
germination. In containers wrapped with 3 layers of herbarium paper, germination was 97%, and when wrapped
with tin foil, germination was 5%. Germination studies spanned many years, and differences were found among
broadleaf cattail seed crops. Seeds collected in 4 of 7 years had increased germination in low oxygen
environments, but 3 crops showed little to no apparent difference with oxygen levels changes [191].
Collection time affected the germination of broadleaf cattail seed collected in November and May in central
Alberta. Less than 1% of fall-collected seeds germinated in light and distilled water, but 90% of seeds collected in
May germinated. Germination in light (81-90%) was significantly higher than in the dark (15-73%, P<0.01).
Germination in the dark increased when broadleaf cattail ash was added to distilled water. Germination was not
affected by pH levels of 4, 7, or 12. Researchers suggested that high light levels and ash on burned sites may
favor broadleaf cattail seed germination. Researchers also suggested that low humidity levels during seed
storage may have affected viability [178], but spring collected seeds may have benefited from natural
stratification.
Flooding: Many controlled experiments indicate that broadleaf cattail seeds germinate well in submerged or
flooded conditions; however, field observations suggest regeneration from seed is restricted to nonflooded
substrates [189]. Beule [16] indicated that field observations made in southeastern Wisconsin did not agree with
laboratory reports of broadleaf seed germination in flooded conditions. Only once did Beule find broadleaf cattail
seedlings in areas where germination may have occurred under shallow water. All other field observations
suggested that germination was restricted to exposed substrates [16]. Differences between laboratory and field
observations may relate to light requirements. The quality and murkiness of water in the field and water used in
the laboratory were likely different, and associated vegetation cover in the field was not likely mimicked in
laboratory studies.
Broadleaf cattail seeds collected near Huntley, Montana, germinated at very low percentages regardless of pH or
temperature treatments. Only when seed coats were ruptured along the edge were high germination
percentages achieved. Broadleaf cattail seeds with ruptured seed coats germinated under 30 inches (76 cm) of
water and grew to the surface [238]. Broadleaf cattail germination percentages were greatest, about 43%, at 16
inches (40 cm) deep and lowest, approximately 16%, when unflooded at the Aquatic Environmental Research
Facility in Lewisville, Texas. Germination percentages at 31-inch (80 cm) and 39-inch (100 cm) depths were
about 25% [188].
Emergence of broadleaf cattail from reclaimed coal mine wetland soils in Perry County, Illinois, was better when
samples were submerged in 0.8 inch (2 cm) of water than when kept moist [31]. Flooding soils collected from the
Hamilton Marshes of New Jersey's Delaware River wetlands with 1.2 to 1.6 inches (3-4 cm) of water did not
significantly affect broadleaf cattail germination (P>0.05). Researchers noted that broadleaf cattail emergence in
9/49
the field was substantially less than in the greenhouse. Frequency of broadleaf cattail seedlings in the field
ranged from 0 to 47% over a 2-year period in 2 vegetation types [126]. See Seed banking for more on seedling
emergence results from Leck and Simpson's [126] study.
Nutrients and extracts: Some studies report differences in percent germination and germination rates when
broadleaf cattail seeds are exposed to leaf litter extracts and nutrients. Germination rate increased but total
percent germination was not different when seeds from the northern Florida Everglades were kept moist with
Everglades water rather than distilled water. Everglades water with low, medium, and high levels of total
phosphate was tested [198].
Germination was nearly a complete failure when seeds collected from broadleaf cattail marshes near Syracuse,
New York, were kept moist with broadleaf cattail leaf extracts. In distilled water, broadleaf cattail germination was
90.8% after only 2 days. The researcher described the inhibition as "autotoxic feedback", a process by which
seedling viability decreases with accumulations of toxic parent residues [148]. Germination of broadleaf cattail
seeds from Washington County, Arkansas, was inhibited by 3% broadleaf cattail leaf extract concentrations, but
inhibition was due to the development of water molds. There were no significant differences in germination of
seeds planted in pots with (82%) or without (86%) adult broadleaf cattail (P>0.05). Light levels were high (81%
full sun) and litter accumulations were low in the pots, which is not representative of a natural broadleaf cattail
stand [74]. In natural broadleaf cattail marshes in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, light was less than 3% at the
soil surface [23].
Broadleaf cattail hybrids: Increased sediments and flooding reduced broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail
germination percentages. Germination of broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail seed collected from Larson
Marsh in Story County, Iowa, decreased by 60% to 90% when 2 to 4 mm of sediment were added to the soil
surface [218]. In the greenhouse, broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail and broadleaf cattail germination was
15% and 16%, respectively, in 16 inches (41 cm) of water. Germination was best in 1 inch (2.5 cm) of water, and
germination percentages decreased with increasing water depths [225].
Seedling establishment/growth: Broadleaf cattail seedlings are extremely small when compared to seedlings
of associated vegetation. Drawings of typical broadleaf cattail seedlings are provided by Leck and Simpson
[125]. After germination, broadleaf cattail produces 2 to 4 small leaves and 2 to 6 floating leaves before
producing erect leaves. Once shoots reach 14 to 18 inches (35-45 cm) tall, rhizome growth begins (Holm and
others as cited in [155]). Flooding and sediments can affect seedling survivorship and growth.
Flooding: Some indicate that broadleaf cattail seedling establishment is most likely on nonflooded substrates
[16,189]. However, Yeo [238] observed that nearly all broadleaf cattail seedlings in the field were submerged in
early growth. At the Aquatic Environmental Research Facility in Lewisville, Texas, broadleaf cattail seedling
biomass was measured 10 weeks after germination at 0- to 47-inch (120 cm) depths. Seedling biomass was
greatest at 7.9 inches (20 cm) and least at 47 inches (120 cm). Unflooded conditions produced seedling biomass
greater than flooding with 24 or more inches (>60 cm) [188].
Hybrid seedlings/growth: Broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail seedling survivorship was much lower in 1 cm
of sediment than when no sediment was present, and younger seedlings were more sensitive to sedimentation
than older (26-37 days) seedlings. Survival decreased when over half of the shoot was covered. Survivorship
increased when older, larger seedlings received small amounts of sediment. Sediment loads of up to 1.6 inches
(4 cm) did not affect adult plant densities [218].
Growth: Typical broadleaf cattail growth and development were summarized after 3 years of studies on the west
side of Lawrence Lake in Michigan. There are 3 shoot emergence pulses/year; one occurs in the early spring,
with spring shoots dying by late fall. In midsummer another pulse of growth occurs, and 70% to 80% of shoots
die in the fall. The last growth pulse produces 80% to 90% of the shoots that will resume growth in spring [45].
The rhizome is the most long-lived broadleaf cattail structure; it survives up to 2 years (Westlake, cited in [45]).
Broadleaf cattail growth and production can be affected by soil moisture regimes and associated species
presence.
Broadleaf cattail biomass production and height growth were greatest for continuously flooded seedlings in a
10/49
greenhouse experiment. Researchers collected broadleaf cattail seed in March from freshwater wetlands along
the Mississippi River in Tennessee. Seedling biomass production and height growth were significantly lower in
periodic drought conditions than in continuously flooded conditions (P<0.001) [131].
At the W. K. Kellogg Biological Station in Michigan, broadleaf cattail shoot density was 32% lower when growing
with narrow-leaved cattail than when growing in a monoculture [81].
Vegetative regeneration: Rhizome growth is important to broadleaf cattail regeneration. Rhizome dispersal may
occur when portions of a clone are separated by wind, water, ice, or animals [6]. Dispersal is also likely through
tillage and substrate movement [47].
Broadleaf cattail is highly productive through clonal growth. Broadleaf cattail clones can occupy 58 m² two years
after germination [77]. Holm and others [102] reported in a review that a single broadleaf cattail colony was 54
m² after 2 growing seasons and produced a total rhizome length of 1,600 feet (480 m). A plant grown from seed
produced rhizomes that reached a diameter of 10 feet (3 m) in a single growing season [238]. Nearly monotypic
broadleaf cattail stands are multiclonal [109]. Broadleaf cattail ramets typically die within a year. If the ramet
flowered, it was very unlikely to live beyond 1 year. In undisturbed broadleaf cattail stands, ramets were not over
3 years old [78].
In many cases, vegetative regeneration predominates over sexual reproduction. Some indicate that seedlings
rarely occur in established broadleaf cattail stands [78] and that rhizome production and growth are the primary
methods for increasing stand size [44]. Researchers collected seed for 3 years from an established high-
elevation broadleaf cattail stand near Grand Lake, Colorado. No seed germinated, but vegetative growth was
described as vigorous [149]. A total of 1,765 broadleaf cattail shoots were monitored in the western marsh of
Lawrence Lake in south-central Michigan over a 2-year period. There were no seedlings, and only 2 shoots
flowered. Researchers summarized that "through vigorous vegetative growth", a dense, monotypic broadleaf
cattail stand produced a "tightly packed advancing front of ramets" that successfully excluded other plants [44].
After a series of field experiments, researchers concluded that broadleaf cattail "is exploitive in its ability to clone
rapidly and colonize available space, is able to capture light effectively because of its high allocation to leaves
and high leaf surface area, and as a result has a low allocation to sexual reproduction" [79].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Throughout its range, broadleaf cattail is most common in freshwater to slightly brackish marshes, ponds, lakes,
ditches, swales, and slow-moving river sites [30,58,172,180].
Climate: Broadleaf cattail's wide distribution implies a wide tolerance of climatic conditions. Broadleaf cattail
occurs in tropical, subtropical, southern and northern temperate, humid coastal, and dry continental climates
[76]. The following climate descriptions represent some widely different climates experienced in broadleaf cattail
habitats in the northern and southernmost portions of its North American range.
Northern habitats: Scattered broadleaf cattail populations occur in central Alaska, where winter temperatures are
as low as -31 °F (-34 °C) [76]. Ponds in open subarctic woodlands near Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, occur
in subarctic-continental climates and remain frozen from late September to mid- or late May. Winters are long
and cold; summers are cool and short with very long periods of sunlight. On 21 June, it is light for 20 hours [60].
Daily temperatures can vary widely in broadleaf cattail marshes of the Ottawa River between Ontario and
Quebec. Daily average minimum and maximum temperatures for January are 5 and 23 °F (-15 and -5 °C) and
for July are 54.5 and 77 °F (12.5 and 25 °C). An average of 120 days are frost free [42].
Southern or desert habitats: Broadleaf cattail occurs in Diamond Pond in the semiarid desert of Harney County,
Oregon. Relative humidity is low, and evaporation is high. A typical growing season is 80 to 117 days. Annual
rainfall averages 7.9 to 12 inches (200-300 mm), and snow levels average 33 inches/year. Daily and seasonal
temperatures fluctuate widely. In nearby Burns, Oregon, temperature extremes of -33 °F (-36 °C) and 100 °F (39
°C) have been reported [229]. Broadleaf cattail is also found on the edges of Mitry Lake near Yuma, Arizona.
This site received 3.5 inches (89 mm) of precipitation in 1963 and 1.5 inches (38 mm) in 1964. Minimum and
maximum temperatures in 1964 were 31 °F (-0.5 °C) in January and 104 °F (40 °C) in July [145]. Broadleaf
11/49
cattail and narrow-leaved cattail-California bulrush communities in southeastern Texas experience frequent
droughts and occasional hurricanes. Typically, there are only 6 or so days of freezing temperatures. In Port
Arthur, rainfall averages 51.8 inches (1,320 mm). Over a 20-year period, precipitation averages ranged from 31
to 66 inches (840-1,700 mm) [124]. In treeless wet prairies of southern Florida's Everglades region, broadleaf
cattail occupies sites with high summer rainfall, high humidity, mild winters, and often a midwinter dry season
[135].
Elevation: Broadleaf cattail occupies sites from sea level to 7,500 feet (2,300 m) throughout North America [58].
Elevations at more narrow geographical ranges are given below.
Elevation range of broadleaf cattail by state or region
State/region Elevation (feet)
Arizona 3,500-7,000 [110]
California below 6,500 [98]; broadleaf cattail is the only California cattail found above 3,000
[143]
Colorado 4,000-7,500 [92]
eastern Idaho 2,980-5,740 [86]
central and eastern 1,950-6,350 [90]

Montana
Nevada 3,900-6,600 [108]; 3,900-5,000 in central-southern Nevada [14]
New Mexico 4,000-8,000 [142]
Utah 4,200-6,910 [227]; up to 7,000 in the Uinta Basin [ 73]
Adirondack Uplands 100-1,700 [116]
Pacific Northwest low to midelevations [172]
Soils: Broadleaf cattail tolerates many soil textures, nutrient levels, moisture regimes, and pH levels.
Descriptions of soil types as well and flooding, drought, and salinity tolerances are described below.
Texture, pH, and fertility: Sand, silt, loam, and clay substrates are described in broadleaf cattail habitats. Acid to
basic soils with low or high levels of nutrients are tolerated. In the Cariboo Forest Region of British Columbia,
broadleaf cattail marshes occupy silty clay loam soils with seasonal or permanent water up to 39 inches (100
cm) deep [196]. The top 4 inches (10 cm) of wetland soils on the Pumice Plain of Mount St Helens, Washington,
were predominantly silt (67.2-80.7%). Organic matter was low (<0.54%), and pH was 5.7 to 7.2 [210]. Broadleaf
cattail in oxbow lakes along the Athabasca River in Alberta occupied basic sites with a pH of up to 9.2 and water
depths up to 9.4 inches (24 cm) [132]. Germination of broadleaf cattail seed from central Alberta was not
affected at pH levels 4, 7, or 12 [178]. In the Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area of Minnesota, broadleaf cattail
was indicative of weakly minerotrophic waters with calcium levels of 3 to10 ppm [97]. In Wisconsin, broadleaf
cattail occurred in water with less than 50 ppm and in waters with more than 150 ppm of calcium carbonate [37].
Broadleaf cattail marshes of the Ottawa River between Ontario and Quebec occupy the most fertile temporarily
flooded sites available [42]. Detailed descriptions of soil fertility in broadleaf cattail stands in Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are provided by Boyd and Hess [20]. In these areas, broadleaf cattail standing
crop biomass was positively correlated with the concentration of phosphorus in the soil and water (r =0.69).
Floating mats: Sometimes broadleaf cattail occurs on floating mats with minimal soil development. In a
freshwater marsh northeast of Sackville, New Brunswick, floating mats of broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail
were 16 to 24 inches (40-60 cm) thick in water 31 to 39 inches (80-100 cm) deep. Developing small mats got
their buoyancy from aerenchyma (tissue with air spaces) in the rhizomes, while older, thicker mats floated on
12/49
trapped air bubbles produced during anaerobic decomposition [101]. In oxbow lakes along the Athabasca River
in Alberta, broadleaf cattail occurred on floating mats in nutrient-poor lakes and was rooted on more nutrient-rich
sites [132].
Soil salinity: Broadleaf cattail tolerates brackish waters; however, salinity tolerance may differ with
developmental stage. Choudhuri [27] found that broadleaf cattail germination decreased with increasing salinity,
and no seeds germinated above 1 atm of osmotic pressure. However, broadleaf cattail was "quite tolerant" of
salinity as a seedling and as an established plant. In marshes of southeastern Louisiana, broadleaf cattail
occurred at salt levels up to 1.13% [171]. In oxbow lakes along the Athabasca River of Alberta, broadleaf cattail
occurred where salinity, measured as water conductivity, was 260 to 1,380 μs/cm [132]. A review of the
vegetative characteristics of prairie marshes in western Canada reports that broadleaf cattail tolerates salinity
levels of less than 10 mS/cm [189].
Flooding: Broadleaf cattail is tolerant of fluctuating water levels [189] and some flooding; however, death or
colonization failure has occurred at flood levels as low as 25 inches (63 cm) [197], and stands grow in 3 feet (1
m) of water in wetlands of southeastern Alberta [111]. Flood tolerance has been associated with rhizome
production, season, age, associated vegetation, and disturbances.
Broadleaf cattail grew in a maximum water depth of 27 inches (68 cm) in monoculture ponds created at the W. K.
Kellogg Biological Station of Michigan and in a maximum depth of 24 inches (61 cm) in ponds with narrow-
leaved cattail [81]. In the same ponds, broadleaf cattail grew at 31-inch (80 cm) depths in May but was restricted
to less than 31-inch (80 cm) depths in September [77]. In experimental ponds at the University of Arkansas,
broadleaf cattail died when water depths exceeded 37 inches (95 cm), and broadleaf cattail density was greatest
at 8.7-inch (22 cm) depths. Broadleaf cattail height increased with increased water depths, but plants flowered
only when roots were not submerged [75]. In a storage pool at the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge in New
York, broadleaf cattails less than 1 year old died when water levels were at or above 18 inches (46 cm). Two-
year-old seedlings did not spread when water levels were 18 to 20 inches (46-51 cm), and at depths over 25
inches (63 cm), even well-established plants died [197].
In controlled field and greenhouse studies, broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail rhizome
production decreased in water levels of 12 inches (30 cm) or more [225]. In the 1st year of pond flooding in
areas drawn down for 2 to 5 years in northwestern Minnesota's Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, broadleaf
cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail grew well at all water depths. After 3 years of flooding,
broadleaf cattail death was substantial in 18 inches (46 cm) of water. Broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail
growth and survival were good in up to 24 inches (61 cm) of water. By the 5th flooded year, broadleaf cattail was
dead in all continuously flooded areas, but survival was good in temporarily flooded areas [93]. In the Crescent
Pond south of Lake Manitoba, the density of broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail was greatest at 9.8-inch (25
cm) and 39-inch (100 cm) depths. Density was lowest at 33 inches (85 cm). Shoot height generally increased
with increasing water depths, suggesting a plastic growth response [220].
Flooded conditions after cutting or burning often result in death. Abovewater plant material is necessary to
tolerate flooding. When broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail stems were cut below the
water surface and kept flooded, both species died [225]. Broadleaf cattail rhizomes in a highly anaerobic
environment in southern Michigan maintained high concentrations of oxygen as long as some portion of the
plant remained above water. Plants cut below water 3 times in a growing season experienced almost complete
belowground death. Researchers suggested that aerenchyma throughout the stems and rhizomes transported
oxygen from the atmosphere to the rhizomes [183].
Drought tolerance: Broadleaf cattail is described as "fairly drought tolerant" [89]. In the Montezuma National
Wildlife Refuge on the northern end of Cayuga Lake in New York, broadleaf cattail stands grew in 0.9 inch (2.2
cm) of standing water in June but were dry in July and August [57]. In marshes of Utah that were drained and
kept dry for 2 years, there was 100% broadleaf cattail mortality [164]. The potential for broadleaf cattail regrowth
with flooding was not discussed.
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
13/49
In open wetland and aquatic communities, broadleaf cattail is considered an early- to late-seral species [76].
However, in moist to wet forest or woodland communities, broadleaf cattail growth is restricted to early-seral
sites that follow canopy-opening disturbances [22,54,78]. Broadleaf cattail's persistent seed bank allows for
rapid colonization of disturbed sites, which partially explains why broadleaf cattail is considered an invasive or
weedy species by some [76,211,228].
General descriptions: Most often, broadleaf cattail is described in early-seral communities. It is considered an
early-seral species in bogs of Michigan [216]. It is a dominant emergent in early successional stages in low- and
high-nutrient sites in oxbow lakes along the Athabasca River in Alberta [132]. The broadleaf cattail type is
described as an "early successional wetland community" at low-elevation sites of southeastern Idaho and Utah
[169]. In northwestern Montana, broadleaf cattail is described as a "pioneer species that tends to form a
relatively stable type" [18].
Shade tolerance: Broadleaf cattail is shade intolerant [116], and full light conditions are most conducive to seed
germination [19,191]. A review reported that shade levels of 40%, 60%, and 90% reduced broadleaf cattail
growth by 60%, 80%, and 90%, respectively, when compared to full sun. Broadleaf cattail often died after 30
months in 90% shade [102]. Broadleaf cattail seedling height was lower in 33% full sun than in full sun
conditions when grown from seed collected from North Bay Park in Michigan. After 84 days in the greenhouse,
seedlings averaged a little over 24 inches (60 cm) under shade cloth and a little over 33 inches (85 cm) in full
sun [224].
Primary succession: Broadleaf cattail appears early in the primary succession of open water and newly-
deposited substrates resulting from avalanche and volcanic flows.
Hydrarch succession is the process by which shallow water species succeed and eventually replace deep water
forms [226]. In open water succession, broadleaf cattail is typically present in the emergent vegetation stage
following stages dominated by submerged leaf and floating leaf species. The submerged and floating leaf stages
of hydrarch succession in floodplains, deltas, and oxbow lakes of Alberta are typically dominated by pondweed
(Potamogeton spp.) and pond-lily (Nuphar spp.), respectively. Broadleaf cattail is common in the next stage.
Eventually sites succeed to sedge meadows that are eventually colonized by cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and
willows (Salix spp.) (Raup, cited in [159]),[130,214]. Very similar succession is described on Steeny Kill Lake in
New Jersey [168], swamps of northwestern Minnesota [ 55], peatlands of Dane County, Wisconsin [63], and in
Gulf Coast marshes of Louisiana and Texas [136], although important species within the submerged, floating
leaf, and emergent stages are often different. Time frames for successional turnover were not discussed.
Debris flow succession: New substrates resulting from volcanic and avalanche debris flows may be colonized by
broadleaf cattail as early as 1 year after deposition. On mud flows created from a slurry of rock, sand, mud, and
organic material that melted with the Mount St Helens eruption, broadleaf cattail was present within 1 year of
eruption [87]. Broadleaf cattail wetlands were also found on new pumice substrates north of the Mount St Helens
crater 14 years after eruption [208]. On debris avalanche deposits along the North Fork Toutle River Valley
caused by the same eruption, broadleaf cattail frequency was 5% three years after the eruption. Nine years after
eruption, frequency had increased to19%. Twenty years after eruption, frequency had decreased to 2% [38].
Secondary succession: Broadleaf cattail rapidly colonizes moist to wet disturbed sites. Often broadleaf cattail
is absent before disturbances but appears soon after canopy opening. Broadleaf cattail's persistent seed bank is
likely important in the rapid colonization of disturbed sites.
General: In West Virginia wetland communities, broadleaf cattail was often associated with recent disturbance
[59]. In bogs of northern lower Michigan, reed (Phragmites spp.)-cattail vegetation is common on sites "greatly
disturbed" by fire or trampling. In Smith's Bog, broadleaf cattail was abundant in disturbed agricultural areas, but
after farms were abandoned, broadleaf cattail dominance decreased [68]. Along the Saugus River in Wakefield,
Massachusetts, the density and composition of disturbed broadleaf cattail marshes were not different from
undisturbed marshes 1 year after power line construction (P>0.05) [167]. Broadleaf cattail colonized newly-
deposited sand on Minnesota Point in Lake Superior within 1 year of dredging. Seedlings appeared 1 year after
dredging, and in the next growing season, there were 9 broadleaf cattail seedlings/10 m² at a 10-foot (3 m)
14/49
distance from the bay shore. Four years after dredging, the sand fill was dominated by a dense willow thicket
and broadleaf cattail marsh [119].
Broadleaf cattail densities and population dynamics were compared in developing and maturing seral
communities in Lawrence Lake area of Barry County, Michigan. Broadleaf cattail density was 10.4 ramets/m² in
open marshes dominated by short-statured vegetation exposed to full sun and wind conditions. Density was
greater, 21 ramets/m², in monotypic broadleaf cattail stands sheltered from wind. In adjacent woodlands
dominated by red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea subsp. sericea) and willows, broadleaf cattail density was
much lower, 4.8 ramets/m². Broadleaf cattail growing-season mortality was lowest in open marsh and greatest in
woodland communities. Researchers indicated that woodland ramet mortality was likely due to decreased light
availability. In open marsh habitats, overwinter mortality was 2.5 to 4 times greater than in monotypic cattail
stands and woodlands, respectively. Lack of protection from weather likely caused this discrepancy in overwinter
mortality. Broadleaf cattail's presence in woodland communities was maintained by vegetative reproduction from
the broadleaf cattail marsh [78].
Logging: In the Clay Belt of northeastern Ontario and western Quebec, broadleaf cattail occurred in ruts created
by logging equipment in wetland black spruce (Picea mariana) stands. Forests were logged an average of 9.3
years before the study. Sites were mesotrophic, high in pH and nitrogen, and dominated by speckled alder
(Alnus incana subsp. rugosa) and cottonwood [22].
Fire: Broadleaf cattail occurred in burned baldcypress ( Taxodium distichum var. distichum)-dominated Pocomoke
River Swamps on the eastern shore of Maryland. Broadleaf cattail clumps and monotypic stands occurred on
shallow burned sites. Researchers noted that broadleaf cattail is a pioneer "fire weed" in postfire hydrarch
succession [15]. Time since fire was not reported. Similar findings of broadleaf cattail in early postfire
communities are presented in Fire Effects.
Grazing/trampling: Broadleaf cattail abundance can be reduced by common muskrat and livestock grazing.
Common muskrats feed extensively on broadleaf cattail roots and rhizomes. Common muskrat populations can
affect successional development and productivity in broadleaf cattail stands [37]. In a wetland north of
Cambridge, Maryland, a researcher observed heavy broadleaf cattail feeding by common muskrats. Twelve
years after heavy use, the broadleaf cattail marsh was converted to green arrow arum (Peltandra virginica)-
dominated vegetation. Extensive common muskrat feeding converted solid broadleaf cattail rhizome mats to
unconsolidated, anoxic, organic substrates, and water levels were lowered by 2 to 6 inches (5-15 cm) [66].
Additional information is available in Common muskrats.
Although broadleaf cattail is not considered particularly palatable to livestock, it may be consumed when water
levels drop and/or other upland forage is unavailable. Grazing and trampling can reduce broadleaf cattail
abundance. In northwestern Montana, heavy livestock use may convert broadleaf cattail communities to a
Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) type [18]. In wetlands of southeastern Alberta, heavy cattle grazing and
trampling killed nearly all broadleaf cattail seedlings on exposed mud. Trampling did not affect established
stands. The researcher concluded that "broadleaf cattail as an established emergent is little affected by cattle,
but as a moist soil stand it is often badly trampled" [111].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Broadleaf cattail typically flowers from late spring and summer in the northern part of its range and from spring to
early summer in the southern part of its range [58]. Broadleaf cattail ramets typically die after flowering [ 77].
When broadleaf cattail seeds collected from across the United States were grown in a common garden, plants
from seed collected in northern populations flowered earlier than plants from seed from southern populations
[147]. In the Midwest, cattails usually emerge by early April, flower from July to September, and senescence
before late October. Seeds typically remain on the spikes through the winter and disperse in spring [6]. Broadleaf
cattail growth begins in March and ends in July at Mitry Lake near Yuma, Arizona. Foliage begins to die in
October, and plants are usually dry by December [145]. On Paynes Prairie Basin in Alachua County, Florida,
broadleaf cattail flowered for about 3 weeks in May. Fruits were ripe in June and July; seeds dispersed from
August to November. Plants began drying in June and were dormant from November to January [170].
15/49
Timing of broadleaf cattail reproductive development by state and region
State/region Flowering and/or fruiting dates
Baja California flowers June-July [230]
California flowers June-July [161]
Carolinas flowers May-July; fruits June-November [175]
Florida flowers May-June in panhandle [30]; flowers spring-summer throughout Florida [ 235]
Illinois flowers June-October [156]
Kansas flowers June-July [10]
Nevada flowers June-August [108]; flowers June-July in south-central Nevada [14]
New Mexico flowers May-July [142]
Texas flowers April-June [46]
West Virginia flowers August-September [201]
Atlantic Coast flowers April-July [ 51]
Blue Ridge flowers May-July [233]

Province
Great Plains flowers late May-July [82]; flowers June and fruits July-September in northern Great
Plains [122]
Intermountain flowers July-August for broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail [36]
West
New England flowers July 7-23 [187]
FIRE ECOLOGY
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS

POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Fire adaptations: After fires in established broadleaf cattail stands, broadleaf cattail typically sprouts from
rhizomes. Within 1 year of the fire, burned and unburned sites may only be different in litter accumulations [11].
Broadleaf cattail may also occur on burned forested and woodland sites within 1 year of a fire, even though
plants were not present before the fire [54]. These findings suggest that broadleaf cattail germinates from a
persistent seed bank or is rapidly dispersed to burned sites.
16/49
Fire regimes: Broadleaf cattail is restricted to moist or wet sites; however, some indicate that
these habitats can burn frequently [40,65]. Fires are not considered frequent in all broadleaf
cattail habitats, though. In alluvial communities of the southeastern Coastal Plain, broadleaf cattail
occurs at the edge of oxbow lakes, where fire is not common [29]. It is likely that fire regimes in
broadleaf cattail marshes and stands are dictated by surrounding upland vegetation. If nearby
vegetation is highly flammable and conditions are dry, fire is likely in broadleaf cattail vegetation
© 2005
[65].
Louis M
Fuels: Fires are not uncommon in broadleaf cattail habitats, and often fuel loads are more than Landry,
adequate for fire spread. Robertson [179] reported that the fuel load/unit area in wetlands can be photo
higher than that of uplands in the upper Midwest. Wetland fires may burn "hotter" and, given taken in
proper conditions, "faster" than upland sites. Fires in cattail marshes produce thick, black smoke, Lac
similar to that produced when tires burn (Rhode, personal communication in [179]). Boivin,
Granby,
Quebec
Pre- and early-settlement fires: Several studies report that Native people as well as early trappers and settlers
burned wetland vegetation to improve travel, hunting success, and food availability. In northern Alberta, Native
people concentrated burning in wetlands (Lewis, personal communication in [206]). The Kumeyaay of southern
California reportedly burned cattail marshes at 3-year intervals (Shipeck as cited in [11]). In south-central
Manitoba, delta marshes were intentionally burned by early trappers to improve travel, expose common muskrat
lodges and coyote, fox, and American mink dens, and concentrate wildlife into unburned areas. Early settlers
often burned Manitoba meadows to improve forage quality. Meadow fires often escaped and burned adjacent
marshes. Burning often occurred in the first warm days of spring [219]. For more on the use of broadleaf cattail
by Native people and early settlers, see Other Uses.
Fires in presettlement time were frequent in several broadleaf cattail habitats across its range. In the Central
Valley of California, freshwater marsh vegetation grows linearly and was likely important to north-south fire
spread during dry conditions. Freshwater marsh vegetation is very productive and provides abundant fuel [232].
In the Driftless Area peatlands of Tempealeau County, Wisconsin, where broadleaf cattail is a common
emergent, pollen records indicate that fire frequency was high before European settlement [40]. Frost [65]
suggests that marshes in North Carolina's Croatan National Forest burned "frequently" in fires originating in
flammable adjacent upland vegetation. Likely the fire frequency would have been similar to that of surrounding
mixed-pine (Pinus spp.) and pond pine (P. serotina) communities, which typically burned every 1 to 3 years in
presettlement times.
Spontaneous combustion: A report of spontaneous combustion was reported in marshlands along the shore of
Lake Pontchartrain near Mandeville, Louisiana. Witnesses watched a fire "apparently ignited spontaneously" on
4 August 1924 in a time of "unprecedented drought". Water levels were several feet below the soil surface, and
temperatures in neighboring towns were 100 to 104 °F (38-40 °C). Additional investigations in the area revealed
that at least 100 separate fires were burning along an 18-mile stretch of marsh and pine vegetation. Other
possible ignition sources were ruled out because of accessibility and timing. Weather reports indicated that
heating and ignition conditions necessary for spontaneous agricultural fires occurred that day near Lake
Pontchartrain. Other naturalists in the area suggested that ignition may have come from a creeping ground fire
[215].
Changes in fire frequency: Fire exclusion has likely decreased fire frequency in broadleaf cattail habitats. On the
North Fork of the Flathead River drainage, Montana, wet sedge meadows, where broadleaf cattail occurs on
newly-disturbed sites, did not burn from 1926 to 1988. Researchers indicated that this was the longest fire-free
interval since 1600 [231].
Prescribed fire practices may also reduce fire frequency in broadleaf cattail vegetation from what likely occurred
in presettlement times. Fire lines used to control wildfires and prescribed fires are often constructed in the
upland-wetland transition areas, where broadleaf cattail is common. Prior to active fire management, fires may
have burned through the wetlands [64].
Communities listed below are those where broadleaf cattail has the greatest potential as a persistent species.
17/49
Fire regimes typical of broadleaf cattail stands are likely related to fire regimes in adjacent upland communities.
Find further fire regime information for the plant communities in which this species may occur by entering the
species name in the FEIS home page under "Find Fire Regimes".
Fire regime information on vegetation communities in which broadleaf cattail may occur. For each community,
fire regime characteristics are taken from the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Vegetation Models [121]. These
vegetation models were developed by local experts using available literature, local data, and/or expert opinion
as documented in the PDF file linked from the name of each Potential Natural Vegetation Group listed below.
Cells are blank where information is not available in the Rapid Assessment Vegetation Model.
Pacific Northwest
Northwest Grassland
Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics

Vegetation Group)
Percent Mean Minimum Maximum
of fires interval interval interval
(years) (years) (years)
Northwest Grassland
Marsh Replacement 74% 7
Mixed 26% 20
California
California Grassland

Vegetation Group)
California Grassland
Herbaceous wetland Replacement 70% 15
Mixed 30% 35
Wet mountain meadow-Lodgepole pine Replacement 21% 100

(subalpine)
Mixed 10% 200
Surface or 69% 30
low
Southwest
Southwest Forested

Vegetation Group)
Southwest Forested
18/49
Riparian forest with conifers Replacement 100% 435 300 550
Riparian deciduous woodland Replacement 50% 110 15 200
Mixed 20% 275 25
Surface or 30% 180 10

low
Great Basin
Great Basin Grassland

Great Basin Forested

Vegetation Group)
Great Basin Grassland
Mountain meadow (mesic to dry) Replacement 66% 31 15 45
Mixed 34% 59 30 90
Great Basin Forested
Stable aspen-cottonwood, no conifers Replacement 31% 96 50 300
Surface or 69% 44 20 60
low
Stable aspen without conifers Replacement 81% 150 50 300
Surface or 19% 650 600 >1,000

low
Northern Rockies
Northern Rockies Shrubland

Vegetation Group)
Northern Rockies Shrubland
Riparian (Wyoming) Mixed 100% 100 25 500
Northern Great Plains
Northern Plains Woodland

Vegetation Group)
19/49
Northern Plains Woodland
Northern Great Plains wooded draws and Replacement 38% 45 30 100

ravines
Mixed 18% 94
Surface or 43% 40 10
low
Great Plains floodplain Replacement 100% 500
Great Lakes
Great Lakes Forested

Vegetation Group)
Great Lakes Forested
Great Lakes floodplain forest Mixed 7% 833
Surface or 93% 61
low
Northeast
Northeast Grassland

Vegetation Group)
Northeast Grassland
Northern coastal marsh Replacement 97% 7 2 50
Mixed 3% 265 20
South-central US
South-central US Forested

Vegetation Group)
South-central US Forested
20/49
Southern floodplain Replacement 42% 140
Surface or 58% 100

low
Southern Appalachians
Southern Appalachians Forested

Vegetation Group)
Southern Appalachians Forested
Bottomland hardwood forest Replacement 25% 435 200 >1,000
Mixed 24% 455 150 500
Surface or 51% 210 50 250

low
Mixed mesophytic hardwood Replacement 11% 665
Mixed 10% 715
Surface or 79% 90
low
Southeast

Vegetation Group)
Southeast Grassland
Everglades sawgrass Replacement 96% 3 2 15
Surface or 4% 70
low
Floodplain marsh Replacement 100% 4 3 30
Everglades (marl prairie) Replacement 45% 16 10 20
Mixed 55% 13 10
Pond cypress savanna Replacement 17% 120
Mixed 27% 75
Surface or 57% 35
low
Southern tidal brackish to freshwater Replacement 100% 5

marsh
21/49
Gulf Coast wet pine savanna Replacement 2% 165 10 500
Mixed 1% 500
Surface or 98% 3 1 10
low
Southeast Shrubland
Pocosin Replacement 1% >1,000 30 >1,000
Mixed 99% 12 3 20
Southeast Woodland
Atlantic wet pine savanna Replacement 4% 100
Mixed 2% 175
Surface or 94% 4
low
Southeast Forested
Maritime forest Replacement 18% 40 500
Mixed 2% 310 100 500
Surface or 80% 9 3 50
low
Southern floodplain Replacement 7% 900
Surface or 93% 63
low
*Fire Severities—
Replacement: Any fire that causes greater than 75% top removal of a vegetation-fuel type, resulting in
general replacement of existing vegetation; may or may not cause a lethal effect on the plants.
Mixed: Any fire burning more than 5% of an area that does not qualify as a replacement, surface, or low-
severity fire; includes mosaic and other fires that are intermediate in effects.
Surface or low: Any fire that causes less than 25% upper layer replacement and/or removal in a vegetation-
fuel class but burns 5% or more of the area [88,120].
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY [199]:

Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on site, initial community)
Initial off-site colonizer (off site, initial community)
Secondary colonizer (on-site or off-site seed sources)
FIRE EFFECTS
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:

Fire typically only top-kills broadleaf cattail [164].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:

Mortality may occur when severe fires burn in drained marshes [138]. Fires that burn deep into the peat layer of
a dry marsh may also cause cattail mortality [16].
22/49
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
When established broadleaf cattail stands burn, plants sprout from the rhizome almost immediately after fire
[11,193]. Even severely burned sites may differ from unburned sites in litter amounts as early as 1 year after fire
[11].
Seedling establishment occurs on burned sites [63], but the seed source is unclear. In several fire studies,
broadleaf cattail plants were not present before the fire but appeared soon after the fire on burned sites. Whether
or not burned site colonization was primarily from dispersed seed, a persistent seed bank, or both sources is
uncertain. Numerous studies without prefire or unburned comparisons make regeneration inferences difficult.
Also see Seed banking and Seed dispersal.
Postfire seedling establishment: Controlled studies suggest that recently burned sites provide good broadleaf
cattail germination habitat. Broadleaf cattail seed collected in central Alberta germinated best in light (P<0.01),
and germination increased when seeds kept in the dark were watered with a mixture of broadleaf cattail ash and
distilled water. Total seedling length also increased with ash treatments in the light and dark. Researchers
indicated that high light and ash levels on burned sites may promote broadleaf cattail germination [178]. After a
summer fire on peatlands of Dane County, Wisconsin, the frequency of mature broadleaf cattail plants and
seedlings was 16% to 96% on 1-year-old burned sites. The fire burned to an average depth of 1 foot (0.3 m) into
the peat layer. Frequency of seedlings was greatest near a ditch with an established broadleaf cattail population
[63].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:

Studies on the postfire regeneration and recovery of broadleaf cattail are limited. After severe fires in established
stands, broadleaf cattail abundance rarely decreases. However, postfire hydrology, depth of burn, and prefire
moisture conditions can affect regeneration. Flooded conditions after fire can cause broadleaf cattail mortality
[179,182]. A summer fire on a drained marsh significantly reduced broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail cover,
density, and height (P<0.05) from that of an unburned control. Burned and unburned sites were compared 3
years after fire [138].
Severe and/or dry-season fires: Numerous fire studies in broadleaf cattail habitats described
the fires as severe, but rarely was broadleaf cattail abundance lower on burned than unburned
sites in early postfire years. Broadleaf cattail occurred in severely burned marsh meadows in the
Oregon Coast Range. Sites burned at least 11 years earlier. Broadleaf cattail was absent from
adjacent mature western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)-Douglas-fir forests (about 300 years old)
[163]. Burned and unburned wetlands in Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve, California, were only
visibly different in litter abundance 1 year after a fall prescribed fire. Strip fires burned in the fall
when wind speeds were low. Fires produced near-black smoke and flame lengths of up to 10
feet (3 m) and were described as "high intensity". In the following April, broadleaf cattail was
nearly 1.6 feet (0.5 m) tall on burned sites, and burned sites were green before unburned sites
[11]. After the September Red Bench Fire that burned wet sedge meadows in Glacier National
Park, broadleaf cattail had 0.5% cover in the 2nd postfire year but was not reported in the 1st or
3rd postfire years. The fire burned when conditions were extremely dry and often burned to
mineral soil. Prefire data were not given, but unburned meadows were dominated by beaked
sedge (Carex rostrata) with near exclusion of other species [231]. After severe fires in smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis) swamps of southeastern
Texas, cattail increased in the understory. After another severe winter fire 2 years later, when
conditions were dry, cattail increased even more [124]. © 2005
Ross Orr.
Fall
prescribed
fire in a
cattail
marsh in
Washtenaw
County,
Michigan
23/49
Invasion after fire: Broadleaf cattail appeared after severe fire or fires during dry conditions in baldcypress and
pondcypress habitats. Two sites in pondcypress domes near Gainesville, Florida, were severely burned in
December. Broadleaf cattail occurred only on burned sites and was not present before the fires. Broadleaf cattail
was very rare in undisturbed pondcypress domes. In the 1st postfire year, broadleaf cattail cover was 10% to
12%. Cover was greatest, 30% to 38%, in the 2nd postfire year. By the 5th postfire year, cover of broadleaf
cattail was reduced to less than 5% in the domes [54]. In pondcypress swamps of southern Florida's Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary, burned, logged, and logged and burned sites were compared. Logging occurred about 25
years earlier, and burning occurred in June, 7 to 8 years earlier in an excessively dry year. Broadleaf cattail was
absent from logged sites, but average importance values ranged from 2 to 8.5 on logged and burned sites. On
only burned sites, broadleaf cattail's importance value averaged 2.2. On burned and burned and logged sites,
pondcypress was absent and coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana) dominated the canopy [84]. Broadleaf
cattail did not occur in baldcypress-dominated woodlands of the Pocomoke River Swamp on Maryland's eastern
shore, but after a fire, broadleaf cattail clumps and monocultures appeared on shallow sites.
Researchers considered broadleaf cattail a pioneer "fire weed" in postfire hydrarch succession [15]. Fire
severity, fire season, and time since fire were not reported.
Broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail: On the Hog Lake impoundment of the Tintamarre Marsh northeast of
Sackville, New Brunswick, summer prescribed burning in drained areas significantly reduced broadleaf cattail ×
narrow-leaved cattail cover, density, and height, but summer burning in flooded areas increased cover
significantly from unburned reference areas (P<0.05). Spring, summer, and fall fires occurred in flooded and
drained areas of the marsh. Broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail cover, density, and height were compared 3
years after fire. In most spring and fall burn treatments, burned and unburned sites were rarely different, except
broadleaf cattail height was significantly greater on spring-burned flooded marsh than on unburned flooded
marsh (P<0.05) [138].
Average cover, density, and height of broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail on drained and flooded,
unburned and burned sites 3 years after fires [138]
Drained marsh
Unburned Spring burned Summer burned Fall burned
Cover (%) 56a 54a 36b 48a
Density (stems/m²) 15a 14a 9b 12ab
Height (cm) 133ab 126b 111c 130a
Flooded marsh
Cover (%) 41a 44ab 55b 46ab
Density (stems/m²) 10a 10a 12a 10a
Height (cm) 155a 165b 158ab 156a
Values with different letters within the same row are significantly different (P<0.05).
Postfire flooding/grazing: While most studies indicate that broadleaf cattail is highly tolerant of fire, increasing
depths of postfire flooding often produce increased broadleaf cattail mortality. Preferential grazing on burned
sites may also decrease broadleaf cattail abundance. In the Howard Slough of Utah, a prescribed fire burned
most broadleaf cattail stems to the ground. Fire season and severity were not reported. The slough was flooded
with 1 to 18 inches (2.5-46 cm) of water immediately after the fire. Broadleaf cattail growth was "heavy" on
intermittently flooded and shallow-water sites (<8 inches (20 cm) "soon" after the fire, but it was absent from
deep-water sites (8-18 inches (20-46 cm)) [164]. In Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge in southwestern South
Dakota, cattail cover (narrow-leaved and broadleaf) was about double on unburned than on burned sites flooded
with 4 to 12 inches (10-30 cm) of water after fire (P<0.05). Prescribed fires burned 2 sites in the fall and 2 sites
24/49
in the spring. Cattail cover was similar on 1-year-old burned sites, regardless of burn season (P>0.05). Sites
were without standing water by summer. Fires burned when fuel moisture was 41% to 253%, soil moisture was
36.5% to 123%, temperatures were 66 to 79 °F (19-26 °C), and relative humidity levels were 30% to 37%. Fires
removed almost all aboveground fuels but did not consume any organic soil. Postfire herbivory was not different
between protected and unprotected sites, indicating that grazers did not preferentially feed on burned sites [182].
Average annual production of broadleaf cattail was much lower on burned and grazed than undisturbed sites 1
year after treatments in the Ogden Bay Waterfowl Management Area freshwater marsh in Utah. Waterfowl and
common muskrats preferentially grazed burned sites. Drawdown began in April, and prescribed fires burned in
early September. Windspeed averaged 10.3 miles (16.6 km)/h, dew point averaged 41 °F (5 °C), and the
maximum daily temperature was 83 °F (28.5 °C) during the fire. Sites were flooded 1 week after burning.
Broadleaf cattail regenerated entirely through sprouting; there were no seedlings on burned sites. Burned and
burned and grazed sites had lower broadleaf cattail production than unburned and ungrazed sites [193].
Production of broadleaf cattail on control, burned, and grazed freshwater marsh in Utah [193]
Burned and Burned Grazed Control

grazed (UB/UG)
Average annual broadleaf cattail production 521±486¹ 1,173±1,161 1,614±437 2,532±948

(g/m²/yr)
¹Standard deviation.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Fire and postfire flooding have been used to reduce broadleaf cattail abundance. Several challenges commonly
occur when burning wetland habitats. Fuel loads are often high, and fires may burn "hotter" and "faster" than
upland vegetation. Construction of fire breaks and maneuverability may also pose challenges in wetlands
habitats [179]. Smoke produced in burning wetlands has been compared to the thick, black smoke produced
when burning tires (Meyer, personal communication in [179]).
In the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, managers used fire to maintain open water in dense cattail
stands. Water levels were drawn down, and cattail vegetation was burned in the summer. Sites were flooded for
several weeks, and cattail was typically removed for at least 2 years (Rhode, personal communication in [179]).
Beule [16] reported that spring fires, ignited on a sunny day in drained marshes following a winter with very little
moisture, are most likely to produce cattail mortality. Winds directing smoke away from populated areas are
important when burning cattail wetlands [16].
Prescribed fires and postfire flooding were used to decrease cattail abundance in marshes of the St Clair
National Wildlife Area of southwestern Ontario. Marshes were dominated by the broadleaf cattail × narrow-
leaved cattail hybrid, although both parent species were present as well. The researcher indicated that winter
fires were likely less "intense" than summer fires in drained marshes and likely easier to control. Submergence
of postfire stubble was necessary to produce cattail mortality. Backfires left the shortest stubble (7 inches (18
cm)), and water levels were not raised much to kill the plants. Stubble may be taller if snow builds up on the ice
before burning, and deeper flooding may be required to kill cattails. Later season burning may reduce this
problem. The researcher noted that burning in successive years was not feasible because regrowth did not
provide enough fuel to carry fire [9]. See the Research Project Summary of Ball's [9] study for a more detailed
description of this study and its findings.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:

Broadleaf cattail may comprise a small portion of livestock and native ungulate diets during dry conditions and/or
25/49
when other more palatable upland forage is unavailable [18,152]. For waterfowl, other marsh birds, and small
mammals, broadleaf cattail provides food and important nesting, brooding, and loafing habitat
[10,118,154,172,203]. Broadleaf cattail is extremely important to common muskrats. It provides a major food
source and important nesting habitats and materials [37,62].
Livestock: In northwestern Montana, broadleaf cattail habitat types may receive heavy livestock use if water
levels are low and/or upland forage is limited [18]. In wetlands of southeastern Alberta, heavy cattle grazing and
trampling did not affect mature established stands [111].
Native ungulates: Deer and elk use of broadleaf cattail is noted in Montana and Washington. Deer may use
broadleaf cattail stands for food and shade or hiding cover in northwestern Montana [18]. Elk feces from the
Mount St Helens blast zone in southwestern Washington had an average broadleaf cattail content of 0.1% to
1.3% from June to September [152].
Small mammals: Broadleaf cattail provides nest habitat and food for a variety of small mammals. In the Great
Plains, broadleaf cattail is used as a lining in small mammal nests [203]. Grass-cattail habitats of No Name Lake
along the lower Colorado River in Arizona had the highest capture rate per unit effort for Arizona cotton rats.
Direct use of broadleaf cattail by the Arizona cotton rat was not discussed [3]. A study of gray catbird nesting
concentrated in Michigan revealed that white-footed mice took over and modified these nests for their own.
Cattail down was found in some of these nests and apparently brought in by white-footed mice [166].
In North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas, broadleaf cattail was an important nutria food source.
In marshes of North Carolina's Hatteras Island, broadleaf cattail was a primary summer food for nutria. Broadleaf
cattail was consumed less in the winter [154]. A review cited several sources that identified broadleaf cattail or
other cattails as important foods for nutria in Texas, Louisiana, and South Carolina [112].
Common muskrats: Broadleaf cattail is a primary common muskrat food, and broadleaf cattail habitats are used
extensively for nesting. In the prairie pothole region of the north-central United States and south-central Canada,
cattails are considered a "staple" common muskrat food [62]. In marshlands south of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
broadleaf cattail was preferred winter habitat based on availability and use (P<0.05) [153]. Cattail stems are
combined with mud to construct lodges. When common muskrats populations are high, cattail can decrease with
extensive use [37]. In the Corinna marsh area of central Maine, broadleaf cattail was an important year-round
common muskrat food. Broadleaf cattail frequency on feeding platforms averaged 45% overall and 85% and
87% in fall and winter, respectively [205]. Broadleaf cattail occurred in 78.9% of common muskrat feed beds in
an alkaline fen on Upper Chateaugay Lake in New York [117]. After heavy common muskrat feeding on broadleaf
cattail in a wetland north of Cambridge, Maryland, broadleaf cattail vegetation was converted to a green arrow
arum-dominated type. The solid broadleaf cattail rhizome mat changed to an unconsolidated, anoxic, organic
substrate, and the marsh was lowered by 2 to 6 inches (5-15 cm) [66]. In Gulf Coast marshes of southern
Louisiana and Texas, common muskrats feed on broadleaf cattail primarily when Olney threesquare is
unavailable [136].
Birds: Waterfowl and other marsh birds throughout the United States and Canada use broadleaf cattail habitats
extensively. Specific studies and research are organized geographically in the paragraphs below.
Western habitats: Red-necked grebes, whooping cranes, marsh wrens, blackbirds, sandhill cranes, rails, and
ring-necked pheasants all utilize broadleaf cattail habitats. Researchers located 89 red-necked grebe nests in
natural and man-made ponds in Yellowknife, Northwestern Territories. Broadleaf cattail was used as a
construction material in 43% of nests, and 39% of nest were anchored to broadleaf cattail [60]. In Wood Buffalo
National Park in western Canada, whooping cranes used softstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail communities as
nesting habitat [207]. Wrens, blackbirds, and waterfowl utilized broadleaf cattail as habitat and food in the Pacific
Northwest [172]. In Oregon's Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, sandhill crane nests were better concealed and
had higher success rates in hardstem bulrush and broadleaf cattail than in broadfruit bur-reed (Sparganium
eurycarpum) or meadows. Nest rate success in broadleaf cattail vegetation was 58.8% [134]. Broadleaf
cattail/hardstem bulrush marshes along the Colorado River between the Arizona/Nevada and US/Mexico borders
were utilized by insectivorous and granivorous wading, water, and shorebirds [4]. In northwestern Montana, the
26/49
broadleaf cattail habitat type is critical nesting and roosting habitat for red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds
[18]. Hen ring-necked pheasants on the Snake River Plain in southern Idaho used wetlands dominated by
broadleaf cattail or willow for loafing, day escape, roosting, and thermal night winter cover more than expected
based on availability (P<0.01) [129]. In Colorado, broadleaf cattail habitats were important nesting cover and
habitat for soras, Virginia rails, blackbirds, and marsh wrens [83,221].
Central/eastern habitats: Canada geese, snow geese, mallards, sandhill cranes, marsh wrens, and blackbirds
utilize broadleaf cattail habitats throughout central and eastern US and Canada habitats. In Marshy Point,
Manitoba, Canada geese preferred broadleaf cattail to hardstem bulrush vegetation for nesting. Preferred
nesting habitats were determined from nest occurrence and availability of the vegetation type. Over a 3-year
period, 133 nests were found in broadleaf cattail. Nest predation was greater in bulrush, 24%, than in broadleaf
cattail, 9% [34]. In the Delta Marsh of south-central Manitoba, breaking up continuous broadleaf cattail stands
and increasing open water increased habitat use by nesting mallards. Use and production of dabbling ducks was
maximized in the hemimarsh phase of development, when cover of water and emergent vegetation were nearly
equal [162]. Sandhill crane nests were found in a wetland in Kennebec County, Maine. Nests were surrounded
by broadleaf cattail and were constructed entirely of the previous season's broadleaf cattail stems and leaves
[151]. In Kansas, broadleaf cattail vegetation is shelter and nest cover for red-winged blackbirds, yellow-headed
blackbirds, and marsh wrens [10]. In Gulf Coast marshes of Louisiana and Texas, snow geese feed on broadleaf
cattail roots and rhizomes in the winter when tides are low and Olney threesquare is unavailable. In a cold winter,
snow geese "devoured several square miles of cattail marsh" [136].
Palatability/nutritional value: Nutritional value of broadleaf cattail was reported for southwestern Washington,
northern Texas, and northern New York. Dry matter digestibility of vegetative broadleaf cattail collected in the
summer from the Mount St Helens blast zone was 52%. Digestibility was 59.2% when plants were in flower.
Vegetative plants were 2.95% nitrogen, and nitrogen was 2.93% in flowering plants [152]. The nutritive quality of
broadleaf cattail was evaluated in the spring from control, grazed, and spring burned wetlands in Castro County,
Texas. Differences between treatments were rarely significant. Broadleaf cattail protein ranged from 9.8% to
15%, ash was 10.3% to 13.4%, cellulose was 25.9% to 32.9%, and lignin was 13.4% to 19.5% [192]. Lacki and
others [117] provide nutrient content and digestibility of broadleaf cattail collected in summer on the Upper
Chateaugay Lake, New York.
Cover value: Broadleaf cattail stands are important cover for waterfowl, songbirds, and other wildlife species
throughout its range [10,18,99,203]. Species specific information is available in Importance to Livestock and
Wildlife.
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:

Broadleaf cattail's high wildlife value, potential for erosion control, and tolerance of heavy metals makes it
desirable in reclamation or revegetation efforts [176]. Studies found broadleaf cattail grew on "industrially
degraded habitats" with heavy metals and high acidity in western Pennsylvania and in Ontario [150]. Broadleaf
cattail also dominated slime ponds 3 years after phosphate mining was discontinued on Florida's central
peninsula [17].
In western Montana, laboratory and field experiments revealed that broadleaf cattail aerated soils and may have
facilitated neighboring plant growth [25]. Planting broadleaf cattail on degraded sites may not be necessary,
since this species rapidly colonizes disturbed sites through seed dispersal or germination from a persistent seed
bank. See Seed banking, Seed dispersal, and Secondary succession for details.
OTHER USES:
Native Americans and early European settlers utilized broadleaf cattail as a food source, a construction material,
and a medicine. Broadleaf cattail has numerous uses and has been referred to as the "supermarket of the
swamps" [185]. Liptay [133] indicated that tribal wars were waged over control of broadleaf cattail marshes.
Food source: Broadleaf cattail is entirely edible, and Native Americans utilized broadleaf cattail year-round.
Newly emerged sprouts were eaten as a green vegetable in the spring. Flower stalks were boiled and eaten like
corn on the cob. Broadleaf cattail pollen, which has a nutty flavor and is high in protein, was added to other
27/49
flours. Rhizomes were dug and eaten in the fall and winter. They were cooked or dried, pounded, and used in
flour [1,10,133]. Comparisons of the nutrient values of broadleaf cattail, rice, and potatoes revealed that
broadleaf cattail shoots and rhizomes contained much more calcium, iron, and potassium than potatoes or rice
[133]. Broadleaf cattail was utilized as a food source by the Kawaiisu of south-central California [239], the
Cahuilla of southern California [13], the Apache and other southwestern Natives [26], Native people along the
Atlantic Coast [51], the Menominee of northern Wisconsin, the Ojibwe in Michigan [185], and likely many others.
Construction/ornamental/ceremonial material: Broadleaf cattail had a tremendous number of household and

ceremonial uses. Leaves were used to make mats, dolls, baskets, and shelters. The hairs of fruits were used as
sound-proofing material, insulation, pillow and lifejacket stuffing, and as tinder for fire starting. A paste made from
rhizomes was used to caulk leaky canoes [10,133]. Early European settlers used the hollow broadleaf cattail
stems to make candles [50]. Native people of the Pacific Northwest wove leaves into bedding, kneeling mats,
capes, hats, blankets, and bags. Seed fluff was used to dress wounds and to stuff pillows, mattresses, and
diapers [172]. Fluff material from seeds was used by the Menominee of northern Wisconsin and the Ojibwe of
Michigan to insulate boots and jackets [185]. The same material was used by tribes of the Missouri River region
as diaper material, pillow filling, and cradle board padding. Broadleaf cattail stem pieces were used as
ceremonial objects by the Omaha and Ponca people [70]. Natives of southern California used broadleaf cattail
leaves to construct houses as well as bedding [13,239]. Navaho people wore bracelets and necklaces made of
broadleaf cattail leaves during the Male Shooting Chant ceremony, and dancers were dusted with broadleaf
cattail pollen in other ceremonies [53]. The northern Cheyenne of Montana incorporated broadleaf cattail leaves
into their Sun Dance [95].
Medicinal use: Broadleaf cattail was most commonly used as a wound dressing. Rhizomes were ground into a
salve for wounds [133]. The Cahuilla of southern California used broadleaf cattail rhizomes to stop bleeding [13].
The northern Cheyenne of Montana made a tea of roots and leaf bases to treat stomach cramps [95]. The Sioux
mixed "downy" cattail fruits with coyote fat to treat smallpox sores [94]. Tribes of the Missouri River region used
fluff from broadleaf cattail seeds to make burn dressings [70]. For more on the past, current, and potential future
uses of broadleaf cattail and other cattail species, see Morton [158].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Nonnative species interactions: Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and reed mannagrass (Glyceria
maxima) are nonnative wetland species that may affect broadleaf cattail growth and development. Several
studies shown purple loosestrife can alter site conditions and reduce broadleaf cattail germination and growth.
Additional information on purple loosestrife growth with broadleaf cattail or in broadleaf cattail habitats is
available from the following references: [57,85,127,223,224]. For a description of reed mannagrass invasions in
broadleaf cattail-dominated wetlands, see Wei and Chow-Fraser [222].
Broadleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail invasions: In some areas, broadleaf cattail
has increased at the expense of other native species. In Harewood Marsh of Jefferson County, West Virginia,
hydrologic changes and increased nutrient inputs may have facilitated broadleaf cattail increases, which may
threaten rare species' persistence [49]. Nutrient enrichment also likely facilitated broadleaf cattail encroachment
of sawgrass into the northern and central Everglades [35]. Urban runoff that increased nitrogen and phosphorus
inputs coincided with broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail increases in Gardner Marsh in the University of
Wisconsin-Madison Arboretum. Experiments revealed that broadleaf cattail × narrow-leaved cattail aboveground
biomass, ramet density, and height were greater in fertilized than in control plots [234].
Broadleaf cattail control: Numerous studies and research address control of broadleaf cattail. Chemical control
is discussed in the following references: [141,157,164,197,213]. Physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological
control methods are available in these sources: [16,69,128,141,164,197].
Typha latifolia: REFERENCES
1. Alderman, DeForest C.; Craigmill, Arthur L. 1981. [Revised]. Native edible fruits, nuts,
28/49
vegetables, herbs, spices, and grasses of California: III. Vegetables. Leaflet 2705. Berkeley, CA:
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension. 18 p. [67653]
2. Allen-Diaz, Barbara H. 1994. SRM 217: Wetlands. In: Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. Rangeland cover
types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 25-26. [66687]
3. Andersen, Douglas C.; Nelson, S. Mark. 1999. Rodent use of anthropogenic and 'natural'
desert riparian habitat, lower Colorado River, Arizona. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management. 15(5): 377-393. [35902]
4. Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D.; Meents, Julie K.; Hunter, William C. 1984. Avian use
of marshes on the lower Colorado River. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds.
California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings;
1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 598-604. [5861]
5. Anderson, J. P. 1959. Flora of Alaska and adjacent parts of Canada. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press. 543 p. [9928]
6. Apfelbaum, Steven I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journal. 5(3): 9-
17. [68427]
7. Au, Shu-fun. 1974. Vegetation and ecological processes on Shackleford Bank, North Carolina.
Scientific Monograph Series No. 6--NPS 113. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. 86 p. [16101]
8. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. The
Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]
9. Ball, John P. 1984. Habitat selection and optimal foraging by mallards: a field experiment.
Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 44 p. Thesis. [18071]
10. Bare, Janet E. 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, KS: The Regents Press of
Kansas. 509 p. [3801]
11. Barry, W. James; Carle, David H.; Carle, Janet A. 2002. The use of prescribed fire in wetland
restoration at Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; Morales, Maria; Morales,
Tony, eds. Fire in California ecosystems: integrating ecology, prevention and management:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1997 November 17-20; San Diego, CA. Misc. Pub. No. 1. [Place
of publication unknown]: Association for Fire Ecology: 263-272. [46209]
12. Batchelor, Ron; Erwin, Mike; Martinka, Robert; McIntosh, Don; Pfister, Robert; Schneegas,
Edward; Taylor, Jack; Walther, Kit. 1982. A taxonomic classification system for Montana riparian
vegetation types: An interagency approach to classifying Montana's riparian ecosystems.
Bozeman, MT: Montana State Rural Areas Development Committee, Wildlife Subcommittee,
29/49
Riparian Program Team. 13 p. [31151]
13. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Chauilla Indian knowledge and
usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225 p. [35898]
14. Beatley, Janice C. 1976. Vascular plants of the Nevada Test Site and central-southern
Nevada: ecologic and geographic distributions. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research. 308 p.
Available from ERDA, Springfield, VA. TID-26881/DAS. [63152]
15. Beaven, George Francis; Oosting, Henry J. 1939. Pocomoke Swamp: a study of a cypress
swamp on the eastern shore of Maryland. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 66: 376-389.
[14507]
16. Beule, John D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin
wetlands. Tech. Bull No. 112. Madison, WI: Department of Natural Resources. 40 p. [14574]
17. Blue, W. G.; Mislevy, P. 1981. Reclamation of quartz-sand tailings and slime ponds from
phosphate mining in Florida. In: Land-use allocation: processes, people, politics, professionals:
Proceedings of the 1980 convention of the Society of American Foresters; 1980 October 6-8;
Spokane, WA. Washington, DC: The Society of American Foresters: 227-234. [9956]
18. Boggs, Keith; Hansen, Paul; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990. Classification and management
of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana. Draft Version 1. Missoula, MT: University
of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana
Riparian Association. 217 p. [8447]
19. Bonnewell, V.; Koukkari, W. L.; Pratt, D. C. 1983. Light, oxygen, and temperature
requirements for Typha latifolia seed germination. Canadian Journal of Botany. 61: 1330-1336.
[17671]
20. Boyd, Claude E.; Hess, Lloyd W. 1970. Factors influencing shoot production and mineral
nutrient levels in Typha latifolia. Ecology. 51(2): 296. [68529]
21. Brotherson, Jack D. 1981. Aquatic and semiaquatic vegetation of Utah Lake and its bays. The
Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 5: 68-84. [11212]
22. Brumelis, G.; Carleton, T. J. 1989. The vegetation of post-logged black spruce lowlands in
central Canada. II. Understory vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 26: 321-339. [7864]
23. Bunker, Daniel Emerton. 2004. The application of competition theory to invaders and
biological control: a test case with purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), broad-leaved cattail
(Typha latifolia), and a leaf-feeding beetle (Galerucella calmariensis). Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh. 116 p. Dissertation. [68579]
30/49
24. California Academy of Sciences. 1964. Tule marshes (Scirpus-Typha). In: Kuchler, A. W.
Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special
Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society: 49. [67376]
25. Callaway, Ragan M.; King, Leah. 1996. Temperature-driven variation in substrate oxygenation
and the balance of competition and facilitation. Ecology. 77(4): 1189-1195. [55980]
26. Castetter, Edward F.; Opler, M. E. 1936. Ethnobiological studies in the American Southwest.
III. The ethnobiology of the Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache. University of New Mexico Bulletin.
4(5): 1-63. [38173]
27. Choudhuri, G. N. 1968. Effect of soil salinity on germination and survival of some steppe
plants in Washington. Ecology. 49(3): 465-471. [623]
28. Chow-Fraser, Patricia. 2005. Ecosystem response to changes in water level of Lake Ontario
marshes: lessons from the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. Hydrobiologia. 539: 189-204.
[68436]
29. Christensen, Norman L. 1988. Vegetation of the southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Barbour,
Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 317-363. [17414]
30. Clewell, Andre F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida Panhandle. Tallahassee,
FL: Florida State University Press. 605 p. [13124]
31. Cole, C. Andrew. 1991. The seedbank of a young surface mine wetland. Wetlands Ecology
and Management. 1(3): 173-184. [19468]
32. Collins, Ellen I. 1984. Preliminary classification of Wyoming plant communities. Cheyenne,
WY: Wyoming Natural Heritage Program/The Nature Conservancy. 42 p. [661]
33. Comes, R. D.; Bruns, V. F.; Kelley, A. D. 1978. Longevity of certain weed and crop seeds in
fresh water. Weed Science. 26(4): 336-344. [50697]
34. Cooper, James A. 1978. The history and breeding biology of the Canada geese of Marshy
Point, Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs No. 61. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Society. 87 p.
[18122]
35. Craft, Christopher B.; Richardson, Curtis J. 1997. Relationships between soil nutrients and
plant species composition in Everglades peatlands. Journal of Environmental Quality. 26(1): 224-
232. [68440]
36. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren,
31/49
Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6:
The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
37. Curtis, John T. 1959. Aquatic communities. In: Curtis, John T. The vegetation of Wisconsin.
Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press: 385-401. [60531]
38. Dale, Virginia H.; Campbell, Daniel R.; Adams, Wendy M.; Crisafulli, Charles M.; Dains,
Virginia I.; Frenzen, Peter M.; Holland, Robert F. 2005. Plant succession on the Mount St. Helens
debris-avalanche deposit. In: Dale, V. H.; Swanson, F. J.; Crisafulli, C. M., eds. Ecological
responses to the 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens. New York: Springer: 59-74. [61208]
39. Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Pullman, WA:
Washington State University, College of Agriculture, Washington Agricultural Experiment Station.
131 p. [733]
40. Davis, Anthony M. 1979. Wetland succession, fire and the pollen record: a Midwestern
example. The American Midland Naturalist. 102(1): 86-94. [7311]
41. Davis, John H., Jr. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida: especially the vegetation,
and the Everglades. Geological Bulletin No. 25. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, Department of
Conservation, Florida Geological Survey. 311 p. [17747]
42. Day, R. T.; Keddy, P. A.; McNeill, J.; Carleton, T. 1988. Fertility and disturbance gradients: a
summary model for riverine marsh vegetation. Ecology. 69(4): 1044-1054. [39768]
43. del Moral, Roger. 1999. Predictability of primary successional wetlands on pumice, Mount St.
Helens. Madrono. 46(4): 177-186. [36256]
44. Dickerman, Joyce A.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1985. Clonal growth in Typha latifolia: population
dynamics and demography of the ramets. Journal of Ecology. 73(2): 535-552. [68532]
45. Dickerman, Joyce Ann. 1982. The pattern and process of clonal growth in a common cattail
(Typha latifolia L.) population. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 95 p. Dissertation.
[68577]
46. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of
north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany, No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research
Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
47. DiTomaso, Joseph M.; Healy, Evelyn A. 2003. Aquatic and riparian weeds of the West.
Publication 3421. Davis, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. 442 p.
[48834]
32/49
48. Dobberpuhl, J. 1980. Seed banks of forest soils in east Tennessee. Knoxville, TN: University
of Tennessee. 219 p. Thesis. [46755]
49. Drohan, P. J.; Ross, C. N.; Anderson, J. T.; Fortney, R. F.; Rentch, J. S. 2006. Soil and
hydrological drivers of Typha latifolia encroachment in a marl wetland. Wetlands Ecology and
Management. 14(2): 107-122. [68442]
50. Duke, James A. 1992. Handbook of edible weeds. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 246 p.
[52780]
51. Duncan, Wilbur H.; Duncan, Marion B. 1987. The Smithsonian guide to seaside plants of the
Gulf and Atlantic coasts from Louisiana to Massachusetts, exclusive of lower peninsular Florida.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 409 p. [12906]
52. Durkin, Paula; Muldavin, Esteban; Bradley, Mike; Carr, Stacey E. 1996. A preliminary
riparian/wetland vegetation community classification of the upper and middle Rio Grande
watersheds in New Mexico. In: Shaw, Douglas W.; Finch, Deborah M., technical coordinators.
Desired future conditions for southwestern riparian ecosystems: bringing interests and concerns
together: Proceedings; 1995 September 18-22; Albuquerque, NM. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-272.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station: 44-57. [26192]
53. Elmore, Francis H. 1944. Ethnobotany of the Navajo. Monograph Series: 1(7). Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico. 136 p. [35897]
54. Ewel, Katherine Carter. 1984. Effects of fire and wastewater on understory vegetation in
cypress domes. In: Ewel, Katherine Carter; Odum, Howard T., eds. Cypress swamps. Gainesville,
FL: University of Florida Press: 119-126. [14845]
55. Ewing, J. 1924. Plant successions of the brush-prairie in north-western Minnesota. Journal of
Ecology. 12: 238-266. [11122]
56. Fassett, Norman C.; Calhoun, Barbara. 1952. Introgression between Typha latifolia and T.
angustifolia. Evolution. 6(4): 367-379. [68533]
57. Fickbohm, Scott S.; Zhu, Wei-Zing. 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. [68446]
58. Flora of North America Association. 2008. Flora of North America: The flora, [Online]. Flora of
North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
59. Fortney, Ronald H. 2000. Plant communities of West Virginia wetlands. West Virginia
Academy of Science. 72(3): 41-54. [68447]
33/49
60. Fournier, Michael A.; Hines, James E. 1998. Breeding ecology and status of the red-necked
grebe, Podiceps grisegena, in the subarctic of the Northwest Territories. The Canadian Field-
Naturalist. 112(3): 474-480. [68448]
61. Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 417 p. [961]
62. Fritzell, Erik K. 1989. Mammals in prairie wetlands. In: Vander Valk, Arnold, ed. Northern
prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 268-301. [15219]
63. Frolik, A. L. 1941. Vegetation on the peat lands of Dane County, Wisconsin. Ecological
Monographs. 11(1): 117-140. [16805]
64. Frost, Cecil C.; Walker, Joan; Peet, Robert K. 1986. Fire-dependent savannas and prairies of
the Southeast: original extent, preservation status and management problems. In: Kulhavy, D. L.;
Conner, R. N., eds. Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management
challenge. Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin University: 348-357. [10333]
65. Frost, Cecil Carlysle, III. 2000. Studies in landscape fire ecology and presettlement vegetation
of the southeastern United States. Chaple Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. 620 p.
Dissertation. [40279]
66. Garbisch, Edgar. 1994. The results of muskrat feeding on cattails in a tidal freshwater
wetland. Wetland Journal. 6(1): 14-15. [22800]
67. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R.
1977. No. 41--the wet grasslands ecosystem. In: Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.;
Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. Vegetation and environmental features of forest
and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 56-58. [68423]
68. Gates, Frank C. 1942. The bogs of northern Lower Michigan. Ecological Monographs. 12(3):
213-254. [10728]
69. Gillespie, JoAnn. 1990. Cutting suppresses cattail, encourages other species in Wisconsin
wetland. Restoration and Management Notes. 8(1): 42-43. [14517]
70. Gilmore, Melvin Randolph. 1919. Uses of plants by the Indians of the Missouri River region.
In: 33rd annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Bureau of American
Ethnology: 44-154. [6928]
71. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United
States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
34/49
72. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern
United States: Monocotyledons. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 712 p. [16906]
73. Goodrich, Sherel; Neese, Elizabeth. 1986. Uinta Basin flora. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ashley National Forest; Vernal, UT: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal District. 320 p. [23307]
74. Grace, James B. 1983. Autotoxic inhibition of seed germination by Typha latifolia: an
evaluation. Oecologia. 59(2-3): 366-369. [68538]
75. Grace, James B. 1989. Effects of water depth on Typha latifolia and Typha domingensis.
American Journal of Botany. 76(5): 762-768. [1822]
76. Grace, James B.; Harrison, Janet S. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 73. Typha latifolia
L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha x glauca Godr. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 66: 361-
379. [17673]
77. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1981. Habitat partitioning and competitive displacement
in cattails (Typha): experimental field studies. The American Naturalist. 118(4): 463-474. [17674]
78. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 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. [68539]
79. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1982. Niche differentiation between two rhizomatous
plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 60: 46-57.
[17683]
80. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1982. Variations in growth and reproduction within
populations of two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Oecologia.
53: 258-263. [17682]
81. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1998. Long-term dynamics of Typha populations. Aquatic
Botany. 61(2): 137-146. [68452]
82. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
83. Griese, Herman J. 1977. State and habitat utilization of rails in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO:
Colorado State University. 65 p. Thesis. [60916]
84. Gunderson, Lance H. 1984. Regeneration of cypress in logged and burned strands at
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida. In: Ewel, Katherine Carter; Odum, Howard T., eds.
35/49
Cypress swamps. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press: 349-357. [14857]
85. Hager, Heather A. 2004. Competitive effect versus competitive response of invasive and
native wetland plant species. Oecologia. 139(1): 140-149. [48442]
86. Hall, James B.; Hansen, Paul L. 1997. A preliminary riparian habitat type classification system
for the Bureau of Land Management districts in southern and eastern Idaho. Tech. Bull. No. 97-
11. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Missoula, MT:
University of Montana, School of Forestry, Riparian and Wetland Research Program. 381 p.
[28173]
87. Halpern, Charles B.; Harmon, Mark E. 1983. Early plant succession on the Muddy River
mudflow, Mount St. Helens, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 110(1): 97-106. [8870]
88. Hann, Wendel; Havlina, Doug; Shlisky, Ayn; [and others]. 2005. Interagency fire regime
condition class guidebook. Version 1.2, [Online]. In: Interagency fire regime condition class
website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; The
Nature Conservancy; Systems for Environmental Management (Producer). Variously paginated [+
appendices]. Available: http://www.frcc.gov/docs/1.2.2.2/Complete_Guidebook_V1.2.pdf [2007,
May 23]. [66734]
89. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian dominance types of
Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana
Forest and Conservation Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
90. Hansen, Paul; Boggs, Keith; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990. Classification and management
of riparian and wetland sites in central and eastern Montana. Draft Version 2. Missoula, MT:
University of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station,
Montana Riparian Association. 279 p. [12477]
91. Harms, Vernon L.; Ledingham, George F. 1986. The narrow-leaved cat-tail, Typha
angustifolia, and the hybrid cat-tail, T. X glauca, newly reported from Saskatchewan. The
Canadian Field-Naturalist. 100(1): 107-110. [68453]
92. Harrington, H. D. 1964. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The Swallow
Press, Inc. 666 p. [6851]
93. Harris, Stanley W.; Marshall, William H. 1963. Ecology of water-level manipulations on a
northern marsh. Ecology. 44(2): 331-343. [17808]
94. Hart, J. 1976. Montana native plants and early peoples. Helena, MT: Montana Historical
Society. 75 p. [9979]
95. Hart, Jeffrey A. 1981. The ethnobotany of the Northern Cheyenne Indians of Montana. Journal
36/49
of Ethnopharmacology. 4: 1-55. [35893]
96. Hayden, Ada. 1919. The ecologic subterranean anatomy of some plants of a prairie province
in central Iowa. American Journal of Botany. 6(3): 87-105. [66943]
97. Heinselman, M. L. 1970. Landscape evolution, peatland types and the environment in the
Lake Agassiz Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecological Monographs. 40(2): 235-261. [8378]
98. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
99. Hitchcock, C. Leo; Cronquist, Arthur. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. 730 p. [1168]
100. Hoagland, Bruce. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping
and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(4): 385-420. [41226]
101. Hogg, Edward H.; Wein, Ross W. 1988. The contribution of Typha components to floating
mat buoyancy. Ecology. 69(4): 1025-1031. [18405]
102. Holm, Leroy; Doll, Jerry; Holm, Eric; Pancho, Juan; Herberger, James. 1997. 99: Typha
angustifolia L. and Typha latifolia L. In: World weeds: Natural histories and distribution. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: 869-879. [68848]
103. Hulten, Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford
104. Jankovsky-Jones, Mabel; Rust, Steven K.; Moseley, Robert K. 1999. Riparian reference
areas in Idaho: a catalog of plant associations and conservation sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-
GTR-20. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station. 141 p. [29900]
105. Johnston, Barry C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential plant communities of
Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas. 4th ed. R2-ECOL-87-2. Lakewood,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 429 p. [54304]
106. Kantrud, Harold A.; Millar, John B.; van der Valk, A. G. 1989. Vegetation of wetlands of the
prairie pothole region. In: van der Valk, Arnold, ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa
State University Press: 132-187. [15217]
107. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the
vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.;
Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-
37/49
ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The
Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service;
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
108. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In
2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426]
109. Keane, Brian; Pelikan, Stephan; Toth, Greg P.; Smith, M. Kate; Rogstad, Steven H. 1999.
Genetic diversity of Typha latifolia (Typhaceae) and the impact of pollutants examined with
tandem-repetitive DNA probes. American Journal of Botany. 86(9): 1226-1238. [68458]
110. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth.
1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
111. Keith, Lloyd B. 1961. A study of waterfowl ecology on small impoundments in southeastern
Alberta. Wildlife Monographs. 6: 1-88. [4501]
112. Kinler, Noel W.; Linscombe, Greg; Ramsey, Paul R. 1987. Nutria. In: Novak, Milan; Baker,
James A.; Obbard, Martyn E.; Malloch, Bruce, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation
in North America. North Bay, ON: Ontario Trappers Association: 326-342. [50675]
113. Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 2004. Classification and management of
aquatic, riparian, and wetland sites on the national forests of eastern Washington: series
description. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-593. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 354 p. [53329]
114. Kramer, Neal B.; Johnson, Frederic D. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of three habitat types
in central Idaho. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1961-1966. [3961]
115. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the
conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical
Society. 77 p. [1384]
116. Kudish, Michael. 1992. Adirondack upland flora: an ecological perspective. Saranac, NY:
The Chauncy Press. 320 p. [19376]
117. Lacki, Michael J.; Peneston, William T.; Adams, Kenneth B.; Vogt, F. Daniel; Houppert,
Joseph C. 1990. Summer foraging patterns and diet selection of muskrats inhabiting a fen
wetland. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68(6): 1163-1167. [68461]
118. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification

guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. [13798]
38/49
119. Lakela, Olga. 1939. A floristic study of a developing plant community on Minnesota Point,
Minnesota. Ecology. 20(4): 544-552. [67538]
120. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2005. Reference condition modeling manual (Version 2.1),
[Online]. In: LANDFIRE. Cooperative Agreement 04-CA-11132543-189. Boulder, CO: The Nature
Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior
(Producers). 72 p. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/downloadfile.php?
file=RA_Modeling_Manual_v2_1.pdf [2007, May 24]. [66741]
121. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment. 2007. Rapid assessment reference condition models. In:
LANDFIRE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Lab; U.S. Geological Survey; The Nature Conservancy (Producers). Available:
http://www.landfire.gov/models_EW.php [66533]
122. Larson, Gary E. 1993. Aquatic and wetland vascular plants of the Northern Great Plains.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-238. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 681 p. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center (Producer). Available:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/vascplnt/vascplnt.htm [2006, February 11]. [22534]
123. Lauver, Chris L.; Kindscher, Kelly; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Schneider, Rick. 1999. A
classification of the natural vegetation of Kansas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 44(4): 421-443.
[38847]
124. Lay, Daniel W.; O'Neil, Ted. 1942. Muskrats on the Texas coast. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 6(4): 301-311. [14561]
125. Leck, Mary A.; Simpson, Robert L. 1993. Seeds and seedlings of the Hamilton Marshes, a
Deleware River tidal freshwater wetland. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. 144: 267-281. [68544]
126. Leck, Mary Allessio; Simpson, Robert L. 1987. Seed bank of a freshwater tidal wetland:
turnover and relationship to vegetation change. American Journal of Botany. 74(3): 360-370.
[66921]
127. Lee, Chuen-Lian. 2001. The potential allelopathic influences of purple loosestrife Lythrum
salicaria L. on native plants. Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University. 116 p. Thesis. [68569]
128. Leininger, Wayne C. 1988. Non-chemical alternatives for managing selected plant species in
the western United States. XCM-118. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Cooperative
Extension. In cooperation with: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 47 p.
[13038]
129. Leptich, David J. 1992. Winter habitat use by hen pheasants in southern Idaho. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 56(2): 376-380. [18317]
39/49
130. Lewis, Francis J.; Dowding, Eleanor S.; Moss, E. H. 1928. The vegetation of Alberta: II. The
swamp, moor and bog forest vegetation of central Alberta. Journal of Ecology. 16: 19-70. [12798]
131. Li, Shuwen; Pezeshki, S. Reza; Goodwin, Shirlean. 2004. Effects of soil moisture regimes on
photosynthesis and growth in cattail (Typha latifolia). Acta Oecologica. 25(1-2): 17-22. [68462]
132. Lieffers, V. J. 1983. Growth of Typha latifolia in boreal forest habitats, as measured by
double sampling. Aquatic Botany. 15: 335-348. [17670]
133. Liptay, Albert. 1989. Typha: review of historical use and growth and nutrition. Acta
Horticulturae. 242: 231-238. [68463]
134. Littlefield, Carroll D. 1995. Sandhill crane nesting habitat, egg predators, and predator
history on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 76(3): 137-143.
[68464]
135. Long, Robert W. 1974. The vegetation of southern Florida. Florida Scientist. 37(1): 33-45.
[9151]
136. Lynch, John J.; O'Neil, Ted; Lay, Daniel W. 1947. Management significance of damage by
geese and muskrats to Gulf Coast marshes. Journal of Wildlife Management. 11(1): 50-76.
[14559]
137. MacDonald, Keith B. 1977. Coastal salt marsh. In: Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. Terrestrial
Vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 263-294. [27548]
138. Mallik, A. U.; Wein, Ross W. 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community to draining,
flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany. 64: 2136-2143. [17672]
139. Mallison, Craig T.; Stocker, Randall K.; Cichra, Charles E. 2001. Physical and vegetative
characteristics of floating islands. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 39: 107-111. [68546]
140. Marcinko Kuehn, Monica; White, Bradley N. 1999. Morphological analysis of genetically
identified cattails Typha latifolia, Typha angustifolia, and Typha x glauca. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 77(6): 906-912. [68460]
141. Martin, Alex C.; Erickson, Ray C.; Steenis, John H. 1957. Improving duck marshes by weed
control. Circular 19 (Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife. 60 p. [16324]
142. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J.
Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
40/49
143. Mason, Herbert L. 1957. A flora of the marshes of California. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 878 p. [16905]
144. Matlack, Glenn R. 1987. Diaspore size, shape, and fall behavior in wind-dispersed plant
species. American Journal of Botany. 74(8): 1150-1160. [28]
145. McDonald, Charles C.; Hughes, Gilbert H. 1968. Studies of consumptive use of water by
phreatophytes and hydrophytes near Yuma, Arizona. In: Water resources of lower Colorado
River--Salton Sea area. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-F. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey: F1 to F24. [18347]
146. McLaughlin, W. T. 1932. Atlantic coastal plain plants in the sand barrens of northwestern
Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 2(3): 335-383. [17126]
147. McNaughton, S. J. 1966. Ecotype function in the Typha community-type. Ecological

Monographs. 36(4): 297-325. [17676]
148. McNaughton, S. J. 1968. Autotoxic feedback in relation to germination and seedling growth
in Typha latifolia. Ecology. 49(2): 367-369. [17684]
149. McNaughton, S. J.; Cambell, R. S.; Freyer, R. A.; Mylroie, J. E.; Rodland, K. D. 1974.
Photosynthetic properties and root chilling responses of altitudinal ecotypes of Typha latifolia L.
Ecology. 55(1): 168-172. [68547]
150. McNaughton, S. J.; Folsom, T. C.; Lee, T.; Park, F.; Price, C.; Roeder, D.; Schmitz, J.;
Stockwell, C. 1974. Heavy metal tolerance in Typha latifolia without the evolution of tolerant
races. Ecology. 55(5): 1163-1165. [17559]
151. Melvin, Scott M. 2002. First breeding records and historical status of sandhill cranes in
Maine and New England. Northeastern Naturalist. 9(2): 193-202. [68548]
152. Merrill, Evelyn H.; Callahan-Olson, Angela; Raedeke, Kenneth J.; Taber, Richard D.;
Anderson, Robert J. 1995. Elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) dietary composition and quality in the
Mount St. Helens blast zone. Northwest Science. 69(1): 9-18. [26633]
153. Messier, F.; Virgl, J. A.; Marinelli, L. 1990. Density-dependent habitat selection in muskrats: a
test of the ideal free distribution model. Oecologia. 84(3): 380-385. [17425]
154. Milne, Robert C.; Quay, Thomas L. 1967. The foods and feeding habits of the nutria on
Hatteras Island, North Carolina. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of
Game and Fish Commissions. 20: 112-123. [15302]
155. Mitich, Larry M. 2000. Common cattail, Typha latifolia L. Weed Technology. 14(2): 446-450.
41/49
[68466]
156. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. [17383]
157. Moore, M. T.; Huggett, D. B.; Huddleston, G. M., III; Rodgers, J. H., Jr.; Cooper, C. M. 1999.
Herbicide effects on Typha latifolia (Linneaus) germination and root and shoot development.
Chemosphere. 38(15): 3637-3647. [68549]
158. Morton, Julia F. 1975. Cattails (Typha spp.) - Weed problem or potential crop? Economic
Botany. 29: 7-29. [17675]
159. Moss, E. H. 1955. The vegetation of Alberta. Botanical Review. 21(9): 493-567. [6878]
160. Muldavin, Esteban; Durkin, Paula; Bradley, Mike; Stuever, Mary; Mehlhop, Patricia. 2000.
Handbook of wetland vegetation communities of New Mexico. Volume I: classification and
community descriptions. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Biology Department; New
Mexico Natural Heritage Program. 172 p. (+ appendices). [45517]
161. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1905 p. [6155]
162. Murkin, Henry R.; Kaminski, Richard M.; Titman, Rodger D. 1982. Responses by dabbling
ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian
Journal of Zoology. 60: 2324-2332. [17669]
163. Neiland, Bonita J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn area of
northwestern Oregon. Ecology. 39(4): 660-671. [8879]
164. Nelson, Noland F.; Dietz, Reuben H. 1966. Cattail control methods in Utah. Publication No.
66-2. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Department of Fish and Game. 66 p. [17809]
165. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2003. National vegetation classification for Nevada
[NVC], [Online]. Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(Producer). Available: http://heritage.nv.gov/ecology/nv_nvc.htm [2005, November 3]. [55021]
166. Nickell, Walter P. 1965. Habitats, territory, and nesting of the catbird. The American Midland
Naturalist. 73(2): 433-478. [23360]
167. Nickerson, Norton H.; Dobberteen, Ross A.; Jarman, Nancy M. 1989. Effects of power-line
construction on wetland vegetation in Massachusetts, USA. Environmental Management. 13(4):
477-483. [68469]
42/49
168. Niering, William A. 1953. The past and present vegetation of High Point State Park, New
Jersey. Ecological Monographs. 23(2): 127-148. [64426]
169. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989. Riparian community
type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. [11360]
170. Patton, Janet Easterday; Judd, Walter S. 1988. A phenological study of 20 vascular plant
species occurring on the Paynes Prairie Basin, Alachua County, Florida. Castanea. 53(2): 149-
163. [15081]
171. Penfound, W. T.; Hathaway, Edward S. 1938. Plant communities in the marshlands of
southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monographs. 8(1): 3-56. [15089]
172. Pojar, Jim; MacKinnon, Andy, eds. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington,
Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 526 p. [25159]
173. Rabe, Fred W.; Chadde, Steve W. 1994. Classification of aquatic and semiaquatic wetland
natural areas in Idaho and western Montana. Natural Areas Journal. 14(3): 175-187. [23962]
174. Racine, Charles H.; Walters, James C. 1994. Groundwater-discharge fens in the Tanana
Lowlands, interior Alaska, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 26(4): 418-426. [53512]
175. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
176. Rainier Seeds, Inc. 2003. Catalog, [Online]. Davenport, WA: Rainer Seeds, Inc., (Producer).
Available: http://www.rainerseeds.com [2003, February 14]. [27624]
177. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford:
Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
178. Rivard, Paul G.; Woodard, Paul M. 1989. Light, ash, and pH effects on the germination and
seedling growth of Typha latifolia (cattail). Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 2783-2787. [14769]
179. Robertson, Morgan M. 1997. Prescribed burning as a management and restoration tool in
wetlands of the upper Midwest. In: Restoration and reclamation review: Student on-line journal
(Hort 5015/5071): Vol. 2-spring 1997: restoration techniques. Available:
http://www.hort.agri.umn.edu/h5015/97papers/robertson.html [2007, December 18]. [68900]
180. Roland, A. E.; Smith, E. C. 1969. The flora of Nova Scotia. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia
Museum. 746 p. [13158]
43/49
181. Rowlatt, Ursula; Morshead, Henry. 1993. Architecture of the leaf of the greater reed mace,
Typha latifolia L. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 110(2): 161-170. [20144]
182. Saenz, Jose H., Jr.; Smith, Loren M. 1995. Effects of spring and fall burning on cattail in
South Dakota. In: Cerulean, Susan I.; Engstrom, R. Todd, eds. Fire in wetlands: a management
perspective: Proceedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1995 November 3-6;
Tallahassee, FL. No. 19. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 151-157. [25783]
183. Sale, P. J. M.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1983. Growth and metabolism of Typha species in relation
to cutting treatments. Aquatic Botany. 15: 321-334. [50593]
184. Schafale, Michael P.; Weakley, Alan S. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina: 3rd approximation. Raleigh, NC: Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 325 p.
Available online: http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/nhp/publications/class.pdf [2005, February 14].
[41937]
185. Schmidt, Judith G. 1990. Ethnobotany of contemporary Northeastern "Woodland" Indians: its
sharing with the public through photography. Advances in Economic Botany. 8: 224-240. [49683]
186. Schneider, Rick E.; Faber-Langendoen, Don; Crawford, Rex C.; Weakley, Alan S. 1997. The
status of biodiversity in the Great Plains: Great Plains vegetation classification. Supplemental
Document 1. In: Ostlie, Wayne R.; Schneider, Rick E.; Aldrich, Janette Marie; Faust, Thomas M.;
McKim, Robert L. B.; Chaplin, Stephen J., compilers. The status of biodiversity in the Great
Plains, [Online]. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy (Producer). 75 p. Available:
http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/02/greatplains_vegclass_97.pdf [2006, May 16]. On file with:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences
Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [62020]
187. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2nd ed. Phytologia Memoirs 5.
Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L. Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
188. Sharp, Jessica Little. 2002. Managing cattail (Typha latifolia) growth in wetland systems.
Denton, TX: University of North Texas. 53 p. Thesis. [68568]
189. Shay, Jennifer M.; Shay, C. Thomas. 1986. Prairie marshes in western Canada, with specific
reference to the ecology of five emergent macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Botany. 64: 443-454.
[18397]
190. Sherff, E. E. 1912. The vegetation of Skokie Marsh, with special reference to subterranean
organs and their interrelationships. Botanical Gazette. 53(5): 415-435. [66922]
191. Sifton, H. B. 1959. The germination of light-sensitive seeds of Typha latifolia L. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 37: 719-739. [17668]
44/49
192. Smith, Loren M. 1989. Effects of grazing and burning on nutritive quality of cattail in Playas.
Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 27: 51-53. [11149]
193. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A. 1985. Fire and herbivory in a Great Salt Lake marsh.
Ecology. 66(1): 259-265. [7619]
194. Smith, S. Galen. 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North American typha
(Typhaceae). The American Midland Naturalist. 78(2): 257-287. [17667]
195. Stark, Kaeli E.; Arsenault, Andre; Bradfield, Gary E. 2006. Soil seed banks and plant
community assembly following disturbance by fire and logging in interior Douglas-fir forests of
south-central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 84(10): 1548-1560. [65962]
196. Steen, O. A.; Roberts, A. L. 1988. Guide to wetland ecosystems of the Very Dry Montane
Interior Douglas-fir Subzone, Eastern Fraser Plateau Variant (IDFb2) in the Cariboo Forest
Region, British Columbia. Williams Lake, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands. 101
p. [53384]
197. Steenis, John H.; Smith, Lawrence P.; Cofer, Henry P. 1959. Studies on cattail management
in the Northeast. In: Transactions of the Northeast wildlife conference: Proceedings; 1958 June 4-
7; Montreal, QC. Montreal, QC: University of Montreal, Department of Game and Fisheries: 149-
155. [19975]
198. Stewart, Herbert; Miao, Shi Li; Colbert, Marsha; Carraher, Charles E., Jr. 1997. Seed
germination of two cattail (Typha) species as a function of Everglades nutrient levels. Wetlands.
17(1): 116-122. [68474]
199. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in
Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file
at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences
Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090]
200. Stoynoff, Nick A. 1993. A quantitative analysis of the vegetation of Bluff Spring Fen Nature
Preserve. Transactions, Illinois State Academy of Science. 63(3/4): 93-110. [23734]
201. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV:
Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]
202. Strickler, Gerald S.; Edgerton, Paul J. 1976. Emergent seedlings from coniferous litter and
soil in eastern Oregon. Ecology. 57: 801-807. [2039]
203. Stubbendieck, James; Coffin, Mitchell J.; Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains.
3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry. 605 p. In
cooperation with: University of Nebraska, Lincoln. [50776]
45/49
204. Taft, John B.; Solecki, Mary Kay. 1990. Vascular flora of the wetland and prairie communities
of Gavin Bog and Prairie Nature Preserve, Lake County, Illinois. Rhodora. 92(871): 142-165.
[14522]
205. Takos, Michael J. 1947. A semi-quantitative study of muskrat food habits. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 11(4): 331-339. [67566]
206. Timoney, Kevin P. 1999. Threatened dry grasslands in the continental boreal forests of Wood
Buffalo National Park: commentary. Canadian Journal of Botany. 77(7): 913-917. [33076]
207. Timoney, Kevin. 1999. The habitat of nesting whooping cranes. Biological Conservation. 89:
189-197. [53513]
208. Titus, Jonathan H.; Titus, Priscilla J.; del Moral, Roger. 1999. Wetland development in
primary and secondary successional substrates fourteen years after the eruption of Mount St.
Helens, Washington, USA. Northwest Science. 73(3): 186-204. [40769]
209. Tolstead, W. L. 1942. Vegetation of the northern part of Cherry County, Nebraska. Ecological
Monographs. 12: 255-292. [4470]
210. Tu, Mandy; Titus, Jonathan H.; Tsuyuzaki, Shiro; del Moral, Roger. 1998. Composition and
dynamics of wetland seed banks on Mount St. Helens, Washington, USA. Folia Geobotanica.
32(1): 3-16. [68516]
211. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region. 2004. Eastern Region
invasive plants ranked by degree of invasiveness, [Online]. In: Noxious weeds and non-native
invasive plants. Section 3: Invasive plants. Milwaukee, WI: Eastern Region (Producer). Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/range/weed/Sec3B.htm [2004, February 16]. [46748]
212. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. PLANTS
Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
213. Vallentine, John F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Provo, UT: Brigham Young
214. van der Valk, A. G.; Bliss, L. C. 1971. Hydrarch succession and net primary production of
oxbow lakes in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 49(7): 1177-1199. [3244]
215. Viosca, Percy, Jr. 1931. Spontaneous combustion in the marshes of southern Louisiana.
Ecology. 12(2): 439-443. [14582]
216. Voss, Edward G. 1972. Michigan flora. Part I: Gymnosperms and monocots. Bloomfield Hills,
MI: Cranbrook Institute of Science; Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Herbarium. 488 p.
46/49
[11471]
217. Walbridge, Mark R.; Lang, Gerald E. 1982. Major plant communities and patterns of
community distribution in four wetlands of the unglaciated Appalachian region. In: McDonald,
Brian R., ed. Proceedings, symposium on wetlands of the unglaciated Appalachian region; 1982
May 26-28; Morgantown, WV. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University: 131-142. [42222]
218. Wang, Shih-Chin; Jurik, Thomas W.; van der Valk, Arnold G. 1994. Effects of sediment load
on various stages in the life and death of cattail (Typha X glauca). Wetlands. 14(3): 166-173.
[68892]
219. Ward, P. 1968. Fire in relation to waterfowl habitat of the delta marshes. In: Proceedings,
annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1968 March 14-15; Tallahassee, FL. No. 8.
Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 255-267. [18932]
220. Waters, I.; Shay, J. M. 1992. Effect of water depth on population parameters of a Typha
glauca stand. Canadian Journal of Botany. 70(2): 349-351. [68556]
221. Weber, William A. 1987. Colorado flora: western slope. Boulder, CO: Colorado Associated
222. Wei, Anhua; Chow-Fraser, Patricia. 2006. Synergistic impact of water level fluctuation and
invasion of Glyceria on Typha in a freshwater marsh of Lake Ontario. Aquatic Botany. 84(1): 63-
69. [68518]
223. Weihe, Paul E.; Neely, Robert K. 1997. The effects of shading on competition between
purple loosestrife and broad-leaved cattail. Aquatic Botany. 59(1-2): 127-138. [68519]
224. Weihe, Paul Edward. 1993. The effects of environmental conditions on competition between
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) and broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia L.). Ypsilanti, MI:
Eastern Michigan University. 61 p. Thesis. [68576]
225. Weller, Milton W. 1975. Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa
State Journal of Research. 49(4): 383-412. [18158]
226. Wells, B. W. 1928. Plant communities of the coastal plain of North Carolina and their
successional relations. Ecology. 9(2): 230-242. [9307]
227. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah
flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p.
[2944]
228. Werner, Katherine J.; Zedler, Joy B. 2002. How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and
47/49
vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands. 22(3): 451-466. [60630]
229. Wigand, Peter Ernest. 1987. Diamond Pond, Harney County, Oregon: vegetation history and
water table in the eastern Oregon desert. The Great Basin Naturalist. 47(3): 427-458. [5980]
230. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1025
p. [21993]
231. Willard, E. Earl; Wakimoto, Ronald H.; Ryan, Kevin C. 1995. Vegetation recovery in sedge
meadow communities within the Red Bench Fire, Glacier National Park. In: Cerulean, Susan I.;
Engstrom, R. Todd, eds. Fire in wetlands: a management perspective: Proceedings, 19th Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference; 1993 November 3-6; Tallahassee, FL. No. 19. Tallahassee, FL:
Tall Timbers Research Station: 102-110. [25778]
232. Wills, Robin. 2006. Central Valley bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.;
Shaffer, Kevin E.; Fites-Kaufman, Joann; Thode, Andrea E., eds. Fire in California's ecosystems.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 295-320. [65547]
233. Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, GA: The
University of Georgia Press. 384 p. [12908]
234. Woo, Isa; Zedler, Joy B. 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards
dominance by the invasive Typha x glauca? Wetlands. 22(3): 509-521. [68522]
235. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. Gainesville, FL:
University Press of Florida. 806 p. [28655]
236. Yahner, R. H.; Storm, G. L.; Melton, R. E.; Vecellio, G. M.; Cottam, D. F. 1991. Floral
inventory and vegetative cover type mapping of Gettysburg National Military Park and
Eisenhower National Historic Site. Tech. Rep. NPS/MAR/NRTR-91/050. Philadelphia, PA: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region. 149 p. [17987]
237. Yeo, Jeffrey J. 2002. Vegetation communities of the Chilly Slough Wetland Conservation
Area. Technical Bulletin No. 02-5. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Idaho State Office. 31 p. Available: http://www.id.blm.gov/techbuls/02_05/doc.pdf
[2003, September 18]. [45251]
238. Yeo, R. R. 1964. Life history of common cattail. Weeds. 12: 284-288. [17666]
239. Zigmond, Maurice L. 1981. Kawaiisu ethnobotany. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah
Press. 102 p. [35936]
48/49
49/49

Fs - Fed.us-Typha Latifolia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fs - Fed.us-Typha Latifolia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Typha latifolia

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:

NRCS PLANT CODE [212]:

DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:

tule marsh potential natural vegetation type [115]

broadleaf cattail plant associations throughout the state [104]

softstem bulrush-cattail-bur-reed-rush (Sparganium-Juncus spp.) in swales and river system depressions;

broadleaf cattail-California bulrush (S. californicus) associations in southeastern freshwater marshes

broadleaf cattail herblands in riparian areas [12]

broadleaf cattail-common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens var. pungens) communities widespread

softstem bulrush-broadleaf cattail vegetation throughout New Mexico [160]

interdune pond communities (vegetation varies with water depth)

broadleaf cattail plant associations in eastern National Forests [113]

broadleaf cattail-bog goldenrod/sphagnum (Solidago uliginosa/Sphagnum recurvum-S. imbricatum)

Western and central United States and Canada:

broadleaf cattail marsh associations in the Cariboo Forest Region [196]

BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Aboveground description: Broadleaf cattail is an aquatic or semiaquatic emergent perennial. Morphological

RAUNKIAER [177] LIFE FORM:

Elevation range of broadleaf cattail by state or region

State/region Elevation (feet)

Arizona 3,500-7,000 [110]

Colorado 4,000-7,500 [92]

eastern Idaho 2,980-5,740 [86]

central and eastern 1,950-6,350 [90]

Nevada 3,900-6,600 [108]; 3,900-5,000 in central-southern Nevada [14]

New Mexico 4,000-8,000 [142]

Utah 4,200-6,910 [227]; up to 7,000 in the Uinta Basin [ 73]

Adirondack Uplands 100-1,700 [116]

Pacific Northwest low to midelevations [172]

State/region Flowering and/or fruiting dates

Baja California flowers June-July [230]

California flowers June-July [161]

Carolinas flowers May-July; fruits June-November [175]

Illinois flowers June-October [156]

Kansas flowers June-July [10]

Nevada flowers June-August [108]; flowers June-July in south-central Nevada [14]

New Mexico flowers May-July [142]

Texas flowers April-June [46]

West Virginia flowers August-September [201]

Atlantic Coast flowers April-July [ 51]

Blue Ridge flowers May-July [233]

New England flowers July 7-23 [187]

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:

Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics

Marsh Replacement 74% 7

Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics

Herbaceous wetland Replacement 70% 15

Wet mountain meadow-Lodgepole pine Replacement 21% 100

Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics

Riparian deciduous woodland Replacement 50% 110 15 200

Mixed 20% 275 25

Surface or 30% 180 10

Great Basin Grassland

Vegetation Community (Potential Natural Fire severity* Fire regime characteristics

Great Basin Grassland

Mountain meadow (mesic to dry) Replacement 66% 31 15 45

Great Basin Forested

Stable aspen-cottonwood, no conifers Replacement 31% 96 50 300