Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 65–77 | Cite as

Mechanisms of dominance by the invasive hybrid cattail Typha × glauca

  • Daniel J. Larkin
  • Monika J. Freyman
  • Shane C. Lishawa
  • Pamela Geddes
  • Nancy C. Tuchman
Original Paper


The mechanisms by which invasive plants displace native species are often not well elucidated, limiting knowledge of invasion dynamics and the scientific basis for management responses. Typha × glauca Godr. invades wetlands throughout much of North America. Like other problematic wetland invaders, Typha is large, grows densely, and leaves behind copious litter. It thus has the potential to impact wetlands both in life and after death. We assessed patterns in field settings and used simulated wetland-plant communities to experimentally test abiotic and community responses to live Typha, Typha litter, and water-level differences (confounded in the field) using a full-factorial design. In general, litter was a stronger driver of change than live Typha. The greatest impacts were seen where, as in nature, live and dead Typha co-occurred. Live-Typha treatments did not differ from controls in light or temperature conditions but did reduce community biomass and alter community composition. Litter strongly affected light, temperature and its variability, community and species-level plant biomass, and community composition. Interactions between live Typha and litter affected aspects of plant-community composition. Advantageously for Typha, interspecific litter effects were not mirrored by intraspecific suppression of live Typha. These findings clarify how Typha is such an effective invader. Similar mechanisms are likely involved in invasions by other plant species, particularly in wetlands. Managers should respond quickly to new Typha invasions and, when dealing with established stands, remove litter in addition to eradicating live plants.


Competition Invasive species Litter Typha × glauca Wetland 



This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program to NCT and MJF (DGE 0343372) and awards to MJF from The Nature Conservancy and the University of Michigan Biological Station. We thank R. Conley, C. Elliot, D. Goldberg, K. Jankowski, E. Kay, S. Khan, K. Kuehn, O. McKenna, M. Mitchell, E. Mynarich, R. Pillsbury and his Wetlands students, J. Price, B. Schuetz, S. Shattuck, L. Vail, and many others for help with data collection; C. Peterson, J. Kelly, R. Lammers, and M. Berg for their advice on various aspects of the research; and two anonymous reviewers for comments that substantially improved an earlier version of this manuscript.


  1. Aerts R, Verhoeven JTA, Whigham DF (1999) Plant-mediated controls on nutrient cycling in temperate fens and bogs. Ecology 80:2170–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert DA, Wilcox DA, Ingram JW, Thompson TA (2005) Hydrogeomorphic classification for great lakes coastal wetlands. J Gt Lakes Res 31:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  4. Anderson MJ (2005) PERMANOVA: a FORTRAN computer program for permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. Angeloni NL, Jankowski KJ, Tuchman NC, Kelly JJ (2006) Effects of an invasive cattail species (Typha × glauca) on sediment nitrogen and microbial community composition in a freshwater wetland. FEMS Microbiol Lett 263:86–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballantine K, Schneider R (2009) Fifty-five years of soil development in restored freshwater depressional wetlands. Ecol Appl 19:1467–1480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskin CC, Baskin JM (2001) Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. Academic Press, New York, p 666Google Scholar
  8. Bergelson J (1990) Life after death: site pre-emption by the remains of Poa annua. Ecology 71:2157–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boutin C, Keddy PA (1993) A functional classification of wetland plants. J Veg Sci 4:591–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouzille JB, Bonis A, Clement B, Godeau M (1997) Growth patterns of Juncus gerardi clonal populations in a coastal habitat. Plant Ecol 132:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown SC, Bedford BL (1997) Restoration of wetland vegetation with transplanted wetland soil: an experimental study. Wetlands 17:424–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Byers JE, Reichard S, Randall JM, Parker IM, Smith CS, Lonsdale WM, Atkinson IAE, Seastedt TR, Williamson M, Chornesky E, Hayes D (2002) Directing research to reduce the impacts of nonindigenous species. Conserv Biol 16:630–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlsen TM, Menke JW, Pavlik BM (2000) Reducing competitive suppression of a rare annual forb by restoring native California perennial grasslands. Restor Ecol 8:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cathey HM (1990) Plant hardiness zone map. In: Jordan R (ed) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Misc. Publ. 1475Google Scholar
  17. Christensen JR, Crumpton WG, van der Valk AG (2009) Estimating the breakdown and accumulation of emergent macrophyte litter: a mass-balance approach. Wetlands 29:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connors LM, Kiviat E, Groffman PM, Ostfeld RS (2000) Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) disturbance to vegetation and potential net nitrogen mineralization and nitrification rates in a freshwater tidal marsh. Am Midl Nat 143:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Craft C, Megonigal P, Broome S, Stevenson J, Freese R, Cornell J, Zheng L, Sacco J (2003) The pace of ecosystem development of constructed Spartina alterniflora marshes. Ecol Appl 13:1417–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Craft C, Krull K, Graham S (2007) Ecological indicators of nutrient enrichment, freshwater wetlands, Midwestern United States (US). Ecol Indic 7:733–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crooks JA (2002) Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: the role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 97:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis CB, van der Valk AG (1978) Litter decomposition in prairie glacial marshes. In: Good RE, Whigham DF, Simpson RL (eds) Freshwater wetlands. Academic Press, New York, pp 99–113Google Scholar
  23. Demidenko E (2004) Mixed models: theory and applications. Wiley-Interscience, Malden, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Facelli JM, Pickett STA (1991) Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev 57:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farrell JM, Murry BA, Leopold DJ, Halpern A, Rippke MB, Godwin KS, Hafner SD (2008) Water-level regulation and coastal wetland vegetation in the upper St. Lawrence River: inferences from historical aerial imagery, seed banks, and Typha dynamics. Hydrobiology 647:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farrer E, Goldberg D (2009) Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecol Appl 19:398–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (2002) Flora of North America vol 23: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Foster RD, Wetzel PR (2005) Invading monotypic stands of Phalaris arundinacea: a test of fire, herbicide, and woody and herbaceous native plant groups. Restor Ecol 13:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fraser LH, Miletti TE (2008) Effect of minor water depth treatments on competitive effect and response of eight wetland plants. Plant Ecol 195:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freyman MJ (2008) The effect of litter accumulation of the invasive cattail Typha × glauca on a Great Lakes coastal marsh. Master’s Thesis, Department of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  32. Frieswyk CB, Zedler JB (2006) Do seed banks confer resilience to coastal wetlands invaded by Typha × glauca? Can J Bot 84:1882-U16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frieswyk CB, Johnston CA, Zedler JB (2007) Identifying and characterizing dominant plants as an indicator of community condition. J Gt Lakes Res 33:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallardo MT, Martin BB, Martin DF (1998) Inhibition of water fern Salvinia minima by cattail (Typha domingensis) extracts and by 2-chlorophenol and salicylaldehyde. J Chem Ecol 24:1483–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hager HA (2004) Differential effects of Typha litter and plants on invasive Lythrum salicaria seedling survival and growth. Biol Invasions 6:433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hametahti L (1980) Juncus alpinoarticulatus: the legitimate name for Juncus alpinus. Ann Bot Fenn 17:341–342Google Scholar
  39. Herman KD, Masters LA, Penskar MR, Reznicek AA, Wilhelm GS, Brodowicz WW, Gardiner KP (2001) Floristic quality assessment with wetland categories and examples of computer applications for the state of Michigan. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MIGoogle Scholar
  40. Holly DC, Ervin GN (2006) Characterization and quantitative assessment of interspecific and intraspecific penetration of below-ground vegetation by cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.) rhizomes. Weed Biol Manag 6:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keddy PA, Reznicek AA (1986) Great Lakes vegetation dynamics: the role of fluctuating water levels and buried seeds. J Gt Lakes Res 12:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keddy PA, Twolan-Strutt L, Wisheu IC (1994) Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments. J Ecol 82:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuehn KA, Suberkropp K (1998) Decomposition of standing litter of the freshwater emergent macrophyte Juncus effusus. Freshwat Biol 40:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levine JM, Vila M, D’Antonio CM, Dukes JS, Grigulis K, Lavorel S (2003) Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 270:775–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lishawa SC, Albert DA, Tuchman NC (2010) Water level decline promotes Typha × glauca establishment and vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:1085–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McNaughton SJ (1968) Autotoxic feedback in relation to germination and seedling growth in Typha latifolia. Ecology 49:367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Minchinton TE, Simpson JC, Bertness MD (2006) Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. J Ecol 94:342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mony C, Mercier E, Bonis A, Bouzille JB (2010) Reproductive strategies may explain plant tolerance to inundation: a mesocosm experiment using six marsh species. Aquat Bot 92:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RG, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2010) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.17-0Google Scholar
  50. Penko JM, Pratt DC (1987) Insect herbivory in Minnesota Typha stands. J Freshwat Ecol 4:235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perry LG, Thelen GC, Ridenour WM, Weir TL, Callaway RM, Paschke MW, Vivanco JM (2005) Dual role for an allelochemical: (±)-catechin from Centaurea maculosa root exudates regulates conspecific seedling establishment. J Ecol 93:1126–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2009) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-96Google Scholar
  53. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  54. Schutz W, Rave G (1999) The effect of cold stratification and light on the seed germination of temperate sedges (Carex) from various habitats and implications for regenerative strategies. Plant Ecol 144:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seabloom EW, van der Valk AG, Moloney KA (1998) The role of water depth and soil temperature in determining initial composition of prairie wetland coenoclines. Plant Ecol 138:203–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shaw PJA (2003) Multivariate statistics for the environmental sciences. Hodder Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith S (1987) Typha: its taxonomy and the ecological significance of hybrids. Arch Hydrobiol 27:129–138Google Scholar
  58. Stuckey RL, Salamon DP (1987) Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. Am J Bot 74:757Google Scholar
  59. Suding KN, Gross KL, Houseman GR (2004) Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thompson DJ, Shay JM (1985) The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Can J Bot 63:1864–1869Google Scholar
  61. Tuchman NC, Larkin DJ, Geddes P, Jankowski K, Wildova R, Goldberg DE (2009) Patterns of environmental change associated with Typha x glauca invasion in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Wetlands 29:964–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaccaro LE, Bedford BL, Johnston CA (2009) Litter accumulation promotes dominance of invasive species of cattails (Typha spp.) in Lake Ontario wetlands. Wetlands 29:1036–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van den Brink PJ, Ter Braak CJF (1998) Multivariate analysis of stress in experimental ecosystems by principal response curves and similarity analysis. Aquat Ecol 32:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Groenendael JM, Klimes L, Klimesova J, Hendriks RJJ (1996) Comparative ecology of clonal plants. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 351:1331–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Voss EG (1972) Michigan flora part I: gymnosperms and monocots. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield HillsGoogle Scholar
  67. Warren RS, Fell PE, Grimsby JL, Buck EL, Rilling GC, Fertik RA (2001) Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries 24:90–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:475–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weiher E, Keddy PA (1995) The assembly of experimental wetland plant communities. Oikos 73:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilcox DA, Kowalski KP, Hoare HL, Carlson ML, Morgan HN (2008) Cattail invasion of sedge/grass meadows in Lake Ontario: photointerpretation analysis of sixteen wetlands over five decades. J Gt Lakes Res 34:301–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Windham L (2001) Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites australis (common reed) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands 21:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha × glauca? Wetlands 22:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Larkin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Monika J. Freyman
    • 1
  • Shane C. Lishawa
    • 1
  • Pamela Geddes
    • 1
    • 3
  • Nancy C. Tuchman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCenter for Urban Environmental Research and Policy, Loyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Plant Science and ConservationGlencoeUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyNortheastern Illinois UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations