Typha angustifolia

L.

Narrowleaf Cattail

G5Secure Found in 5 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
UnknownThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.160663
Element CodePMTYP01020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassMonocotyledoneae
OrderTyphales
FamilyTyphaceae
GenusTypha
Other Common Names
narrowleaf cattail (EN) Narrow-leaved Cattail (EN) Quenouille à feuilles étroites (FR)
Concept Reference
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-07-09
Change Date1984-09-06
Edition Date2024-07-09
Edition AuthorsK. MOTIVANS, S. APFELBAUM, MRO (1987), rev. Eberly (2024)
Threat ImpactUnknown
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Rank Reasons
Typha angustifolia is a wide ranging emergent, aquatic perennial herb occurring across much of eastern North America and Eurasia. This native range of this species is uncertain, and its overall distribution is expanding. With a large range extent, hundreds of occurrences, abundant habitat, broad habitat preferences, and no obvious intrinsic vulnerabilities, this species is considered secure.
Range Extent Comments
Typha angustifolia is widely distributed in the eastern and northern United States and Eurarsia. It is considered an invasive, non-native throughout North America by some (Stuckey and Salamon 1987) but is now thought that it is native in coastal areas of New England and Mid-Atlantic North America, but has been expanding its range westward (Shih and Finkelstein 2008). Weakley and Southweastern Flora Team (2024) consider inland occurrences as non-native, and occurrences of tidal areas of the Atlantic Coast as of uncertain nativity.
Occurrences Comments
By applying a 1 km separation distance to herbarium records and photo-based observations documented between 1993 and 2024, there are estimated to be over 300 occurrences rangewide (GBIF 2024, iNaturalist 2024, SEINet 2024).
Ecology & Habitat

Diagnostic Characteristics

Typha angustifolia may be difficult to separate from the tall cattail (Typha domingensis). Typha domingensis is usually taller and has flattened and more numerous leaves (Apfelbaum 1985). Hybrids of intermediate appearance have been reported, and are often referred to as the species Typha x glauca.

T. angustifolia, narrow-leaved cattail , is distinguished from Typha latifolia, broad-leaved cattail, by the relative width of the leaf and the position of the staminate and pistillate portions of the spadix (heads). Typha latifolia has 6-23 mm wide leaves that are flat, sheathing, and pale grayish-green in color. T. angustifolia has 3-8 mm wide leaves that are full green and somewhat convex on back (USDA 1971). In T. latifolia the staminate and pistillate heads are contiguous or nearly so, whereas in T. angustifolia the heads are separated by approximately 3 cm.

Habitat

Cattails have a cosmopolitan distribution and a wide ecological amplitude. Typha can be found in wetlands, sedge meadows, along slow moving streams, river banks, and lake shores. They can grow on a wide gradient of substrate types: wet pure sand, peat, clay and loamy soils. The plant is found in areas of widely fluctuating water levels such as roadside ditches, reservoirs and other disturbed wet soil areas. Cattails commonly invade the pelagic zones of bogs (Gustafson 1976). Typical associates include Phragmites australis, Lythrum salicaria, Spartina spp., Acorus calamus, Scirpus spp., and Sagittaria latifolia.

Typha angustifolia is widely distributed in the eastern and northern United States and is generally restricted to unstable environments, often with basic, calcareous, or somewhat salty soils (Fassett and Calhoun 1952). Narrow-leaved cattail can grow in deeper water compared to T. latifolia, although both species reach maximum growth at a water depth of 50 cm (20 inches) (Grace and Wetzel 1981). A robust hybrid between narrow-leaved and broad-leaved cattail, Typha x glauca, has similar habitat requirements to T. angustifolia.

Typha latifolia is found in the most favorable sites where it competes against other species. T. angustifolia and T. domingensis are restricted to less favorable and more saline habitats when they occur with T. latifolia (Gustafson 1976). Typha latifolia often displaces T. angustifolia in shallow (<15 cm) water, restricting the latter species to deep water (Grace and Wetzel 1981). Typha angustifolia is considered a pioneer in secondary succession of disturbed bogs (Wilcox et al. 1984). Presumably, an increase in the acidity of a bog would lower the pH and reduce the invasion of T. angustifolia. Theodore Cochran (pers. comm), of the University of Wisconsin-Madison herbarium states that most early herbarium specimens are T. latifolia and only recently have T. angustifolia specimens been collected from Wisconsin wetlands.

Ecology

The structure of cattail stands as it is, with upright leaves, high leaf area, balanced horizontal and vertical distribution of leaf area and shifts in leaf angle are all factors which permit monoculture success. An open, generously sunny habitat and abundant moisture can provide the setting for maximum cattail production.

Typha plants are mined by caterpillars of the moths Arzama opbliqua and Nonagria oblonga (Klots 1966). Aphids and Colandra pertinaux (the snout beetle) also feed on Typha leaves and stems. The stems may have many species of pupa living within them (Klots 1966). The cattail rhizomes provide food to mammals such as the muskrat. The grazing of muskrats may greatly influence cattail communities. A cycling population of muskrats may reach such a density so as to totally set back a cattail stand for the season. These "eat outs" are important to maintain open water in a balanced system. Muskrats utilize leaves and stems for houses and eat the rhizomes (Zimmerman pers. comm.). Cattail fruits provide nesting material for terrestrial birds and dry stems may be used by aquatic birds.

Above ground portions die in the late fall and rhizomes overwinter. In Wisconsin, it was found that average winter marsh temperatures greater then 8 degrees C reduced carbohydrate reserves in Typha latifolia to an extent sufficient to inhibit shoot growth in the spring (Adriano et al. 1980). Cattail population success has been correlated with nutrient fertility (Boyd 1971), water level and substrate temperature (Adriano et al. 1980).

The plant tissues can store relatively high concentrations of some metals. Typha appears to have an internal copper and nickel tolerance mechanism. It is not likely that there is an evolutionary selection for heavy metal tolerance, but rather it is inherent in the species (Taylor and Crowder 1984).

Reproduction

Cattails flower in late May and June and sometimes later (up to late July) depending, perhaps, on soil and water temperatures as influenced by climate and litter in a stand. The wind-borne pollen attaches to stigmas of female florets to eventually produce achene fruits. The elongated embryo and stalk are covered with fine, unmatted hairs that aid in wind dispersal. Fruits are mature in August and September. Seeds are very small, weighing 0.055 mg each (Keddy and Ellis 1985).

Many cattail germination studies have been conducted. Some of these suggest that germination requirements are few. Seed germination can be 100 percent in slightly flooded conditions (Smith 1967). Typha latifolia seeds are less tolerant to salt (NaCl) concentrations in the substrate when compared to T. angustifolia seeds. However, seeds of both species which had been soaked in salt solution would germinate after being returned to non-saline conditions (McMillan 1959). Typha angustifolia seeds showed no significant germination response when sprouted along a moisture gradient which ranged from 5 cm below substrate to 10 cm above (Keddy and Ellis 1985). Other studies have confirmed that water is required at a depth of 2.54 cm for germination. Sifton (1959) showed light and low oxygen tensions affected germination of broad-leaved cattail.

Van der Valk and Davis (1976) suggested that the germination of Typha seeds could be inhibited by an allelopathic interaction caused by Typha litter. Seed longevity and dormancy may be affected by soil moisture, temperature and soil atmosphere (Schafer and Chilcote 1970, Roberts 1972, Meyer and Poljakoff-Mayber 1963, Morinaga 1926).

Young Typha shoots grow rapidly from seeds in favorable substrates. Cattail colonies are commonly maintained by vegetative reproduction. A perennial root stock is the major organ responsible for reproduction (Apfelbaum 1985). Cattail productivity has been well documented. Net annual production has usually been estimated as the maximum standing crop (shoot biomass) values for a good site are generally between 1000 and 1700 g/m (d.w.) (Gustafson 1976). Figures for Typha production mostly exceed the average standing crop yields for maize and sorghum.

Shoot density reports (numbers of stems per square meter) range from 28/m2 (Curtis 1959) in Wisconsin to an extreme example reported by Dykyjova et al. (1971) of 108/m2. In a greenhouse experiment, ninety-eight vegetative shoots and 104 crown buds were produced on a single seedling during it's first year (Timmons et al. 1963). Cattails can produce 20,000-700,000 fruits per inflorescence (Prunster 1941, Marsh 1962, Yeo 1964). Vegetative growth by broad-leaved cattails of 518 cm (17 feet) annually have been recorded (McDonald 1951), and plants grown from seed flowered the second year (Smith 1967, Yeo 1964).

Cattail plants produce a dense rhizome mat and the clustered leaves produce a thick litter layer. Dense cattail growth and litter may reduce the opportunity for other plants to establish or survive (Wesson and Waring 1969).
Palustrine Habitats
HERBACEOUS WETLANDBog/fen
Other Nations (2)
CanadaN5
ProvinceRankNative
Prince Edward IslandSNANo
SaskatchewanSNANo
OntarioSNANo
AlbertaSNANo
ManitobaS3Yes
Nova ScotiaSNANo
QuebecSNANo
British ColumbiaSNANo
New BrunswickSNANo
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
FloridaS1Yes
CaliforniaSNRYes
MissouriSNRYes
DelawareSNANo
AlabamaSNRYes
New YorkS5Yes
TexasSNRYes
ColoradoS4Yes
MississippiSNRYes
New MexicoSNRYes
ArkansasSNRYes
West VirginiaS5Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
VermontS5Yes
MarylandSNRYes
OklahomaSNRYes
GeorgiaSNANo
KansasS5Yes
NevadaSNRYes
South DakotaSNRYes
KentuckyS5Yes
ArizonaSNRYes
North CarolinaS3Yes
IndianaSNANo
South CarolinaSNRYes
LouisianaSNRYes
IowaS5Yes
IllinoisS4Yes
MaineSNANo
Rhode IslandSNRYes
WisconsinSNRYes
New HampshireSNRYes
North DakotaSNRYes
WyomingSNANo
MontanaSUYes
IdahoSNRYes
VirginiaS5Yes
TennesseeSNRYes
NebraskaSNRYes
OhioSNRYes
MassachusettsSNRYes
District of ColumbiaSNRYes
New JerseyS5Yes
MichiganSNANo
ConnecticutSNRYes
PennsylvaniaSNRYes
OregonSNANo
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
Unknown/undetermined

Plant Characteristics
DurationPERENNIAL, SPRING-FLOWERING, SUMMER-FLOWERING
Economic Value (Genus)No
Roadless Areas (5)
North Dakota (2)
AreaForestAcres
SheyenneDakota Prairie Grasslands14,537
WannaganDakota Prairie Grasslands6,026
Utah (1)
AreaForestAcres
WellsvilleWasatch-Cache National Forest1,717
Vermont (1)
AreaForestAcres
Woodford 09086Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests2,456
Washington (1)
AreaForestAcres
Pasayten RimOkanogan National Forest17,074
References (35)
  1. Adriano, D. C., A. Fulenwider, R. R. Shariz, T. G. Ciraudlo, and G. D. Hoyt. 1980. Growth and mineral nutrition of cattail (Typha) as influenced by thermal alteration. J. Environ. Quality 9(4):649-653.
  2. Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1971. Common Weeds of the United States. Dover Publications: New York. 463 pp.
  3. Apfelbaum, S. I. 1985. Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Natural Areas Journ. 5(3):9-17.
  4. Biesboer, D. D. 1984. Nitrogen fixation associated with natural and cultivated stands of Typha latifolia L. (Typhaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 71(4):505-511.
  5. Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
  6. Dykyjova, D., K. Veblr, and K. Priban. 1971. Productivity and root/shoot ratio of reed swamp species growing in outdoor hydroponic cultures. Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha6 233-254.
  7. Fassett, N. C. and B. Calhoun. 1952. Introgression between Typha latifolia and T. angustifolia. Evolution 6:267-379.
  8. Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 22. Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part), and Zingiberidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 352 pp.
  9. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2024. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2024).
  10. Grace, J. B. and R. G. Wetzel. 1981. Effects of size and growth rate on vegetative reproduction on Typha. Oecologia (Berlin) 50(2):158-161.
  11. Gustafson, T. D. 1976. Production, photosynthesis and the storage and utilization of reserves in a natural stand of Typha latifolia L. Ph. D. thesis. University of Wisconsin -Madison. 102 pp.
  12. iNaturalist. 2024. Online. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org (accessed 2024).
  13. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
  14. Keddy, P. A., and T. H. Ellis. 1985. Seedling recruitment of 11 wetland plant species along a water level gradient: shared or distinct reponses? Can. J. Bot. 63:1876-1879.
  15. Klots, E. B. 1966. Freshwater life. GP Putnams Sons, NY.
  16. Marsh, L. C. 1962. Studies in the genus Typha. Ph.D. Thesis. Syracuse Univ. (Libr. Congr. Card No. Mic 63-3179) Univ. Microfilm, Ann Arbor, Mich. 126 pp.
  17. Meyer, A. M. and A. Poljakoff-Mayber. 1963. The germination of seeds. MacMillan Company, New York. 236 pp.
  18. Morinaga, T. 1926. The favorable effect of reduced oxygen supply on the germination of certain seeds. American Journal of Botany 13:159-166.
  19. Prunster, R. 1941. Germination conditions for Typha muelleri and its practical significance for irrigation channel maintenance. Austral. Counc. Sci. Indus. Res. Jour. 14:129-136.
  20. Roberts, E. H. 1972. Dormancy: a factor affecting seed survival in the soil. Viability of Seeds, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, pp. 321-359.
  21. Schafer, D. E. and D. O. Chilcote. 1970. Factors influencing perisistence and depletion in buried seed populations. II. The Effect of Soil Temperature and Moisture. Crop. Sci. 10:342-345.
  22. Shih, J.G., and S.A. Finkelstein. 2008. Range dynamics and invasive tendencies in <i>Typha latifolia</i> and <i>Typha angustifolia</i> in eastern North America derived from herbarium and pollen records. Wetlands 28:1–16.
  23. Sifton, H. B. 1959. The germination of light sensitive seeds of Typha latifolia. Can. J. Bot. 37:719-739.
  24. Smith, S. G. 1961. Natural hybridization and taxonomy in the genus Typha with particular reference to California populations. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of California, Berkley.
  25. Smith, S. G. 1962. Natural hybridization among five species of cattail. Am J. Bot. 49:678.
  26. Smith, S. G. 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North America Typha (Typhaceae). Am. Midl. Nat. 78:257-287.
  27. Southwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet). 2024. Collections Databases. Online. Available: https://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/collections/index.php (accessed 2024).
  28. Stuckey, R.L.a nd D.P. Salamon. 1987.<i> Typha angustifolia</i> in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. American Journal of Botany, 74: 757.
  29. Taylor and Crowder. 1984. Copper and nickel tolerance in T. latifolia clones from contaminated and uncontaminated environments. Can. J. Bot. 62:1304-1308.
  30. Timmons, F. L., et al. 1963. Control of common cattail in drainage channels and ditches. Tech. Bull. 1286, U. S. Dept. of Agr., ARS, Washington,D. C. 51 pp.
  31. Van der Valk, A.G., and C.B. Davis. 1976. Changes in the composition, structure, and production of plant communities along a perturbed wetland coenocline. Vegetatio 32(2):87-96.
  32. Weakley, A.S., and Southeastern Flora Team. 2024. Flora of the southeastern United States. Edition of March 4, 2024. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 2203 pp.
  33. Wesson, G. and P. F. Waring. 1969. The role of light in germination of naturally occurring populations of buried weed seeds. J. Exp. Bot. 20:402-413.
  34. Wilcox, D. A., S. I. Apfelbaum, and R. Hiebert. 1984. Cattail invasion of sedge meadows following hydrologic disturbance in the Cowles Bog Wetland Complex, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. J. Soc. of Wetlands Scientists 4:115-128.
  35. Yeo, R. R. 1964. Life history of common cattail. Weed 12:284-288.