Description
Potentially Misidentified Species - Typha X glauca (Blue Cattail) is a hybrid of T. latifolia (Wide-Leafed Cattail) and T. angustifolia. Typha domingensis (Southern Cattail), reaches its northern limit at Chesapeake Bay, and is frequently misidentified as T. angustifolia (Grace and Harrison 1986).
Taxonomy
| Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plantae | Magnoliophyta | Liliopsida | Typhales | Typhaceae | Typha |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
| First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1806 | Established | Stable | Cryptogenic | Regular Resident | Europe | Eurasia | Shipping(Dry Ballast), Agriculture(Agricultural Weed) |
History of Spread
Typha angustifolia (Narrow-Leaved Catail) now has a boreal, circumpolar range in Eurasia and North America, but it was absent in the earliest floras for North America In contrast, T. latifolia (Wide-Leaved Cattail) was widespread in early floras across Euope and North America (Stuckey and Salamon 1987; Stuckey 1987; Stuckey 1993). Typha angustifoliaT. angustifolia or 'T. angustifolia-Sparganium' pollen have been reported from coastal marsh sediments, more than 350 years old, from Long Island and NJ (Clark 1978; Carmichael 1980). Both these records suggest drastic increases in abundance of T. angustifolia pollen in the mid-1800's, but this could be due to in part to the local development of marshes. Genetic studies might be useful in determining whether American populations are native or derived from Europe (Grace and Harrison 1986). The pollen of T. angustifolia can be separated from that of the native Sparganium spp. (Burr-Reed) only by careful measurements (Shih and Finkelstein 2008). While pollen and seed data are scanty, the historical record supports introduced status for T. angustifolia (Stuckey and Salamon 1987; Stuckey 1987; Stuckey 1993. However, a recent review of herbarium collections and pollen studies has supported the westward spread of T. angustifolia, but has indicated that pollen, apparently that of T. angustifolia. and that of the T. latifolia-angustifolia hybrid, T. Xglauca, has been found in pre-settlement sediments (800-1300 AD), from Piermont Marsh, on the lower Hudson River (Shih and Finklestein 2008). i>Typha angustifolia, if native, would have had to be rare and confined to the Atlantic Coast (Stuckey and Salomon 1987).
However, these palynological findingss are contradicted by genetic analysis that indicates strong similarity between Eurasian and North American populations (Ciotir et al. 2012). Ciotir er al. used microsatellite data and chloroplast DNA sequences to compare T. latifolia and T. angustifolia genotypes from eastern North America and Europe. 'In both species, our data revealed a high level of genetic similarity between North American and European populations that is indicative of relatively recent intercontinental dispersal. More specifically, the most likely scenario suggested by Approximate Bayesian Computation was an introduction of T. angustifolia from Europe to North America' . Considering the contradictory evidence, we will treat T. angustifolia as cryptogenic.
Pursh, who collected in VA in 1806, reported T. angustifolia from VA and NY (Pursh 1814). LaConte (1811, cited by Stuckey 1987) also collected it in NY(Stuckey 1987, Stuckey and Salamon 1987). A study of 19th century floras suggest a range expansion southward along the Atlantic coast, or if native, drastic increase in abundance in areas between New York City and Washington DC, combined with a rapid westward movement. Floras for the Northeast indicate a change from 'rare' to 'common or abundant', and a shift in relative abundance compared to T. latifolia by the late 1850's (Stuckey 1987). By 1831, T. angustifolia was found from Boston to Washington DC (Stuckey 1987). By 1900, it had reached the Great Lakes, and by 1940, it had reached SC and the Great Plains (Hotchkiss and Dozier 1949). It is now found in CA along the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, and is found south to FL (Grace and Harrison 1986; Stuckey 1987).
Typha angustifolia was absent among MD herbarium specimens, collected before 1753, and listed by Brown et al. (1987), although T. latifolia was present. It was listed for Washington DC(Brereton 1830), but not recorded by Aikin (1837) for Baltimore (Aikin did record T. latifolia). It was also missing from the Potomac-Side Naturalists Club (1876) flora for Washington DC (but was added in very old handwriting). Typha angustifolia was listed by Ward (1881) and Sollers (1888), and was reported to be abundant in coastal marshes by Shreve et al. (1910) and Tatnall (1946). It is now widespread in the Chesapeake Bay area, occurring in 13 of 17 local studies of marsh vegetation between 1965 and 1995 (Fofonoff unpublished data).
History References - Aikin 1837; Beaven and Oosting 1939; Brereton 1830; Brown et al. 1897; Clark 1978; Carmichael 1980; Grace and Harrison 1986; Gray 1848; Hotchkiss and Dozier 1949; Potomac-Side Naturalists Club 1876; Shreve et al. 1910; Sollers 1888; Stuckey 1987; Stuckey and Salamon 1987; Tatnall 1946; Ward 1881.
Invasion Comments
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
| For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Temperature (ºC) | -13.0 | |||
| Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 18.0 |
| Oxygen | hypoxic | |||
| pH | ||||
| Salinity Range | fresh-meso |
Age and Growth
| Male | Female | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Adult Size (mm) | 1000.0 | 1000.0 |
| Typical Adult Size (mm) | 1500.0 | 1500.0 |
| Maximum Adult Size (mm) | 3000.0 | 3000.0 |
| Maximum Longevity (yrs) | ||
| Typical Longevity (yrs | 4.0 | 4.0 |
Reproduction
| Start | Peak | End | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reproductive Season | |||
| Typical Number of Young Per Reproductive Event |
|||
| Sexuality Mode(s) | |||
| Mode(s) of Asexual Reproduction |
|||
| Fertilization Type(s) | |||
| More than One Reproduction Event per Year |
|||
| Reproductive Startegy | |||
| Egg/Seed Form |
Impacts
Economic Impacts in Chesapeake Bay
The early date of Typha angustifolia's (Narrow-Leaved Cattail's) invasion (before 1814; Pursh 1814; Stuckey 1987) makes its impacts in Chesapeake Bay hard to assess. Impacts which have been reported from other areas, particularly the midwest United States and Canada, would be likely in Chesapeake Bay also. Most of these are attributable to all Typha spp, including the native T. latifolia, T. dominguensis, and the hybrid T. X glauca
Aesthetics - Typha spp. are considered an important aquatic weed in many areas, but they are also frequently planted as ornamentals (Grace and Harrison 1986).
Fisheries - T. angustifolia may have replaced native marsh vegetation (Spartina spp., Scirpus spp.), affecting marsh food webs, resulting in decreased recruitment of marsh-dependent baitfishes or juveniles of some commercial species as sugested for Phragmites australis (Motivans and Apfelbaum 1997). However T. angustifolia probably has more wildlife value, at least for mammals and birds, than Phragmites australis (Marks et al. 1994).
Boating - Typha spp. may obstruct boating in shallow water (Grace and Harrison 1986).
Habitat Change - Typha spp. can sustain rapid growth in disturbed areas, especially with nutrient inputs. Typha spp. can grow rapidly in irrigation canals and ponds, on sandbars, and in disturbed marsh areas, restricting water flow and increasing rates of siltation (Grace and Harrison 1986; Motivans and Apfelbaum 1997).
Agriculture- Typha spp. was once an important food and building material resource for Native Americans and European settlers. Negative impacts include possible blockage of irrigation ditches (Grace and Harrison 1986).
References - Grace and Harrison 1986; Marks et al. 1994; Motivans and Apfelbaum 1997; Stuckey 1987
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
Overall impacts of Typha angustifolia's possible early introduction to North America are listed in 'Economic Impacts'. Costs versus benefits are impossible to assess because this species seems now well established in Eastern U.S. ecosystems, although it may be invasive in disturbed environments (Grace and Harrsion 1986; Motivans and Apfelbaum 1997). It seems to be more heavily used by wildlife than Phragmites australis (Common Reed) (Marks et al. 1994).
References- Grace and Harrsion 1986; Marks et al. 1994) Motivans and Apfelbaum 1997
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
Typha angustifolia (Narrow-leaved Cattail) was introduced to the Atlantic Coast of North America at such an early time that its impacts on native biota cannot be easily assessed. By the time tidal wetlands in Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere were being examined ecologically (e.g. Shreve et al. 1910), this species was already abundant.
Hybridization - Typha X glauca ('Blue Cattail' ) is a hybrid with T. latifolia, and is widely reported when the two species are found together. Hybrid swarms, resulting from backcrossing, have been reported in some areas (Grace and Harrison 1986). However, Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) assays indicate little introgression of genes from the other species into the parent populations, but does show a high frequency of F1 hybrids (12-62%) in 5 North American populations (MA, NY, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba) (Kuehne et al. 1999). Hybrids appear to compete vigorously with the parent species, and are more tolerant of disturbance (Galatowitsch et al. 1999).
Competition - Typha angustifolia's most important competitor in our area is T. latifolia. In estuaries, the two species are partly separated by salinity tolerance, T. angustifolia in the Patuxent River was found in areas with a maximum salinity of 14 ppt while T. latifolia's maximum salinity was 4 ppt (Anderson et al. 1968). T. latifolia is more tolerant of acidity than T. angustifolia (Grace and Harrison 1986), which may explain T. latifolia's higher abundance in swamp environments (Grace and Harrison 1986; Beaven and Oosting 1939). Where the two species coexist, the bulk of the T. angustifolia population tends to be in deeper water than T. latifolia. The species differ in resource allocation, with T. angustifolia investing less biomass in clonal growth and more in sexual reproduction and long-range dispersal (Grace and Wetzel 1982; Grace and Harrison 1986). T. dominguensis is similar to T. angustifolia morphologically, and in salinity tolerance, although T. dominguensis is rare in Chesapeake Bay (Hotchkiss and Dozier 1949).
In disturbed areas, Typha spp. (T. angustifolia but also native T. latifolia, the hybrid T. X glauca and native T. dominguensis) can behave like introduced weeds and outcompete more desirable native vegetation. Rapid vegetative reproduction and litter production (Grace and Harrison 1986; Havens et al. 1997; Motivans and Apfelbaum 1987) decreases space available for other plants.
Habitat Change - Typha angustifolia's invasion and spread on the Atlantic coast occurred too early for direct ecological study. Since T. angustifolia is more salt-tolerant than T. latifolia, its invasion would have likely meant a seaward extension of Typha growth at the expense of Spartina spp. marshes. Expansion of Typha spp. in wetlands frequently results in decreased open water, reduced habitat diversity, and lower water levels, due to rapid transpiration and high litter production. Control of cattails is often desirable in order to maintain a diverse wetland community (Motivans and Apfelbaum 1987).
Food/Prey - Typha angustifolia's large rhizomes are an especially important food for Ondatra zibethicus (Muskrats). The hybrid form T. X glauca was preferred over T. angustifolia and T. latifolia (Hotchkiss and Dozier 1949).
References - Anderson et al. 1968; Beaven and Oosting 1939; Galatowitsch et al. 1999; Grace and Wetzel 1982; Haslam 1972; Havens et al. 1997; Hotchkiss and Dozier 1949; Kuehne et al. 1999; Marks et al. 1994; Motivans and Apfelbaum 1987
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Typha angustifolia (Narrow-leaved Cattail) was introduced to the Atlantic Coast of North America at such an early time that its impacts on exotic biota cannot be easily assessed. By the time tidal wetlands in Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere were being examined ecologically (e.g. Shreve et al. 1910), this species was already abundant.
Competition- One of T. angustifolia's major competitors, Phragmites australis (Common Reed), may consist largely or entirely of introduced invasive genotypes in Chesapeake Bay (See 'Invasion History' ). Typha angustifolia tends to grow in deeper water, and closer to the water edge of marshes than P. australis (Haslam 1972; Grace and Harrison 1986). However, replacement of T. angustifolia by P. australis has occurred in portions of Hog Island Marsh on the Rhode River, Edgewater MD (Fofonoff, personal observation).
Food/Prey - Typha angustifolia is occasionally an important food for Myocastor coypus ( Nutria), comprising up to 12% of the diet (Willner et al. 1979).
References - Haslam 1972; Grace and Harrison 1986; Willner et al. 1979
References
Aikin, W. E. A. (1837) Catalogue of phenogamous plants and ferns, native or naturalized, growing in the vicinity of Baltimore, Maryland., Transactions of the Maryland Academy of Sciences and Literature 1: 55-91Anderson, Richard D.; Brown, Russell, G.; Rappleye, Robert D. (1968) Water quality and plant distribution along the upper Patuxent River, Maryland, Chesapeake Science 9: 145-156
Atkinson, Robert B.; Bodkin, Norlyn L.; Perry, James E. (1990) New county records collected in tidal wetlands of four coastal plain counties along the James River, Virginia, Castanea 55: 56-64
Beaven, George F.; Oostng, Henry J. (1939) Pocomoke Swamp: a study of a cypress swamp on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Bulletn of the Torrey Botanical Club :
Brereton, J. A. (1830) Prodromus of the Flora Columbiana, , Washington, D.C.. Pp.
Brown, Melvin L.; Brown, Russell G. (1984) Herbaceous Plants of Maryland, , College Park. Pp.
Brown, Melvin L.; Reveal, J. L; Broome, C. R.; Frick, George F. (1987) Comments on the vegetation of colonial Maryland, Huntia 7: 247-283
Carmichael, Dorothy Peteet (1980) A record of environmental change during recent millenia in the Hackensack tidal marsh, New Jersey, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 107: 514-524
Clark, J. S. (1986) Late-Holocene vegetation and coastal processes at a Long Island tidal marsh, Journal of Ecology 74: 561-578
Fernald, Merritt L. (1950) Gray's Manual of Botany, In: (Eds.) . , New York. Pp.
Flowers, Margaret G. (1973) Vegetational zonation in two successional brackish marshes of Chesapeake Bay, Chesapeake Science 14: 197-200
Galatowitsch, Susan M.; Anderson, Neil O.; Ascher, Peter D. (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America, Wetlands 19: 733-755
Gleason, Henry A. (1963) The new Britton and Brown illustrated flora of the northeastern United States and adjacent Canada, In: (Eds.) . , New York. Pp.
Grace, James B.; Harrison, Janet S. (1986) The biology of Canadian weeds. 73. Typha latifolia L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha xglauca Godr., Canadian Journal of Plant Science 66: 361-379
Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. (1982) Niche differentiation between two rhizotomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia, Canadian Journal of Botany 60: 46-57
Gray, Asa (1848) A manual of botany of the northern United States., In: (Eds.) . , Boston. Pp.
Harvill, A. M., Jr.; Bradley, T. R.; Stevens, C. E.; Weiboldt, T.F.; Ware, D.E.; Ogle, D. W. (1986) Atlas of the Virginia Flora, , Farmville, VA. Pp.
Harvill, A. M.; Bradley, Ted R.; Stevens, Charles E.; Wieboldt, Thomas F.; Ware, Donna M. E.; Ogle, Douglas W.; Ramsey, Gwynn W.; Fleming, Gary P. (1992) Atlas of the Virginia Flora, , Burkeville, VA. Pp.
Haslam, S. M. (1972) Biological flora of the British Isles List Br. Vasc. Pl. (1958) No. 665, . 1. Phragmites communis, Journal of Ecology 60: 585-610
Havens, Kirk J.; Priest, Walter I. III; Berquist, Harry (1997) Investigation and long-term monitoring of Phragmites australis within Virginia's constructed wetland sites., Environmental Management 21: 599-605
Hotchkiss, Neil (1972) Common Marsh, Underwater, and Floating-Leaved Plants of the United States and Canada, , New York. Pp.
Hotchkiss, Neil; Dozier, Herbert L. (1949) Taxonomy and distribution of North American Cat-tails, American Midland Naturalist 41: 237-254
Kuehn, M. Marcinko; Minor, J.E.; White, B.N. (1999) An examination of hybridization between the cattail species Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia using random amplified polymorphic DNA and chloroplast DNA markers., Molecular Ecology 8: 1981-1990
Marks, Marianne; Lapin, Beth; Randall, John (1994) Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, management, and monitoring, Natural Areas Journal 14: 285-294
Motivans, K.; Apfelbaum, S. (1987) Element stewardship abstract for Typha spp., In: (Eds.) . , . Pp. 1-13
Muenscher, Walter C. (1944) Aquatic plants of the United States., In: (Eds.) . , Ithaca NY. Pp.
Philipp, Charles C.; Brown, Russell C. (1965) Ecological studies of transition-zone vascular plants in South River, Maryland, Chesapeake Science 6: 73-81
Pursh, Frederick (1814) Flora Americae Septentrionalis or, a Systematic Arrangement and Description of the Plants of North America, , Hirschburg. Pp.
Resource Management Inc. (1993) National list of plant species that occur in wetlands., , Minneapolis.. Pp.
Shreve, Forrest M.; Chrysler, M. A.; Blodgett, Frederck H.; Besley, F. W. (1910) The Plant Life of Maryland, , Baltmore. Pp.
Sipple, William S. (1978) An atlas of vascular plant distribution species for tidewater Maryland, , Annapolis, Maryland. Pp.
Sollers, Basil (1888) Check list of plants compiled for the vicinity of Baltimore., , Baltimore. Pp.
Stuckey, Ronald L. (1993) Phytogeographical outline of aquatic and wetland angiosperms in continental eastern North America, Aquatic Botany 44: 259-301
Stuckey, Ronald L.; Salamon, Douglas P. (1987) Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native, Ohio Journal of Science 87: 4
Tatnall, Robert R. (1946) Flora of Delaware and the Eastern Shore, , Wilmington. Pp.
Ward, L. F. (1881) Guide to the flora of Washington and Vicinity, United States National Museum Bulletin 22: 1-264
Wass, Melvin L. (1972) A checklist of the biota of lower Chesapeake Bay, Special Scientific Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 65: 1-290
Whigham, D. F.; Jordan, T. E.; Miklas, J. (1989) Biomass and resource allocation of Typha angustifolia L. (Typhaceae): the effect of within and between year variations in salinity, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 116: 364-370
Willner, Gale R.; Chapman, Joseph A.; Pursley, Duane (1979) Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits, and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes., Wildlife Monographs 65: 1-43