Phragmites australis

(Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.

Common Reed

G5Secure Found in 39 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.134146
Element CodePMPOA4V010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVascular Plant
IUCNLeast concern
KingdomPlantae
PhylumAnthophyta
ClassMonocotyledoneae
OrderCyperales
FamilyPoaceae
GenusPhragmites
Synonyms
Phragmites communisTrin.
Other Common Names
Cana de Indio (ES) common reed (EN) Roseau commun (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.
Taxonomic Comments
Generally accepted as an essentially cosmopolitan species; the name Phragmites communis is used for this plant in most older North American literature.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-05-16
Change Date1988-04-28
Edition Date1993-05-12
Edition AuthorsMarianne Marks (original version), Beth Lapin & John Randall (1993 update), Larry Morse (minor updates 2001).
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Nearly cosmopolitan as a presumably native plant in marshes and other wetland habitats on all continents except Antarctica. Additionally, at least in North America, non-native genotypes may have become established in areas not previously supporting Phragmites.
Range Extent Comments
Phragmites australis is found on every continent except Antarctica and may have the widest distribution of any flowering plant (Tucker 1990). It is common in and near freshwater, brackish and alkaline wetlands in the temperate zones world-wide. It may also be found in some tropical wetlands but is absent from the Amazon Basin and central Africa. It is widespread in the United states, typically growing in marshes, swamps, fens, and prairie potholes, usually inhabiting the marsh-upland interface where it may form continuous belts (Roman et al. 1984).

Because Phragmites has invaded and formed near-monotypic stands in some North American wetlands only in recent decades there has been some debate as to whether it is indigenous to this continent or not. Convincing evidence that it was here long before European contact is now available from at least two sources. Niering and Warren (1977) found remains of Phragmites in cores of 3000 year old peat from tidal marshes in Connecticut. Identifiable Phragmites remains dating from 600 to 900 A.D. and constituting parts of a twined mat and other woven objects were found during archaeological investigations of Anasazi sites in southwestern Colorado (Kane & Gross 1986; Breternitz et al. 1986).

There is some suspicion that although the species itself is indigenous to North America, new, more invasive genotype(s) were introduced from the Old World (Metzler and Rosza 1987). Hauber et al. (1991) found that invasive Phragmites populations in the Mississippi River Delta differed genetically from a more stable population near New Orleans. They also examined populations elsewhere on the Gulf coast, from extreme southern Texas to the Florida panhandle, and found no genetic differences between those populations and the one near New Orleans (Hauber, pers. comm. 1992). This increased their suspicion that the invasive biotypes were introduced to the Delta from somewhere outside the Gulf relatively recently.

Phragmites is frequently regarded as an aggressive, unwanted invader in the East and Upper Midwest. It has also earned this reputation in the Mississippi River Delta of southern Louisiana, where over the last 50 years, it has displaced species that provided valuable forage for wildlife, particularly migratory waterfowl (Hauber 1991). In other parts of coastal Louisiana, however, it is feared that Phragmites is declining as a result of increasing saltwater intrusion in the brackish marshes it occupies. Phragmites is apparently decreasing in Texas as well due to invasion of its habitat by the alien grass ARUNDO DONAX (Poole, pers. comm. 1985). Similarly, Phragmites is present in the Pacific states but is not regarded as a problem there. In fact, throughout the western U.S. there is some concern over decreases in the species' habitat and losses of populations.
Occurrences Comments
Perhaps the most widespread plant species on Earth, with numerous large, presumably native stands on all continents except Antarctica. In addition, at least in North America, novel (Eurasian?) genotypes have become widely established along the Atlantic Coast and in scattered inland sites where Phragmites was not previously known historically (Kristin Saltonstall, presentation to Botanical Society of Washington, 5 June 2001).
Threat Impact Comments
IMPACTS (THREATS POSED BY THIS SPECIES)

Phragmites can be regarded as a stable, natural component of a wetland community if the habitat is pristine and the population does not appear to be expanding. Many native populations of Phragmites are "benign" and pose little or no threat to other species and should be left intact. Examples of areas with stable, native populations include sea-level fens in Delaware and Virginia and along Mattagota Stream in Maine (Rawinski 1985, pers. comm. 1992). In Europe, a healthy reed belt is defined as a "homogeneous, dense or sparse stand with no gaps in its inner parts, with an evenly formed lakeside borderline without aisles, shaping a uniform fringe or large lobes, stalk length decreasing gradually at the lakeside border, but all stalks of one stand of similar height; at the landside edge the reeds are replaced by sedge or woodland communities or by unfertilized grasslands" (Ostendorp 1989).

Stable populations may be difficult to distinguish from invasive populations, but one should examine such factors as site disturbance and the earliest collection dates of the species to arrive at a determination. If available, old and recent aerial photos can be compared to determine whether stands in a given area are expanding or not (Klockner, pers. comm. 1985).

Phragmites is a problem when and where stands appear to be spreading while other species typical the of the community are diminishing. Disturbances or stresses such as pollution, alteration of the natural hydrologic regime, dredging, and increased sedimentation favor invasion and continued spread of Phragmites (Roman et al. 1984). Other factors that may have favored recent invasion and spread of Phragmites include increases in soil salinity (from fresh to brackish) and/or nutrient concentrations, especially nitrate, and the introduction of a more invasive genotype(s) from the Old World (McNabb and Batterson 1991; Metzler and Rosza 1987, see GLOBAL RANGE section for further discussion).

Michael Lefor asserts that one reason for the general spread of Phragmites has been the destabilization of the landscape (pers. comm. 1993). In urban landscapes water is apt to collect in larger volumes and pass through more quickly (flashily) than formerly. This tends to destabilize substrates leaving bare soil open for colonization. Watersheds throughout eastern North America are flashier due to the proliferation of paved surfaces, lawns and roofs and the fact that upstream wetlands are largely filled with post-settlement/post agricultural sediments from initial land-clearing operations.

Many Atlantic coast wetland systems have been invaded by Phragmites as a result of tidal restrictions imposed by roads, water impoundments, dikes and tide gates. Tide gates have been installed in order to drain marshes to harvest salt hay, to control mosquito breeding and, most recently, to protect coastal development from flooding during storms. This alteration of marsh systems may favor Phragmites invasion by reducing tidal action and soil water salinity and lowering water tables.

Phragmites invasions may threaten wildlife because they alter the structure and function (wildlife support) of relatively diverse Spartina marshes (Roman et al. 1984). This is a problem on many of the eastern coastal National Fish and Wildlife Refuges including: Brigantine in NJ; Prime Hook and Bombay Hook in DE; Tinicum in PA; Chincoteague in VA; and Trustom Pond in RI.

Plant species and communities threatened by Phragmites are listed in the Monitoring section. Some of these instances are described below:

1. Massachusetts, a brackish pondlet near Horseneck Beach supports the state rare plant MYRIOPHYLLUM PINNATUM (Walter) BSP, which Phragmites is threatening by reducing the available open water and shading aquatic vegetation (Sorrie, pers. comm. 1985).

2. Maryland, at Nassawango Creek, a rare coastal plain peatland community is threatened by Phragmites (Klockner, pers. comm. 1985).

3. Ohio, at the Arcola Creek wetland, phragmites is threatening the state endangered plant CAREX AQUATILIS Wahlenb. (Young, pers. comm. 1985).

Phragmites invasions also increase the potential for marsh fires during the winter when the above ground portions of the plant die and dry out (Reimer 1973). Dense congregations of redwing blackbirds, which nest in Phragmites stands preferentially, increase chances of airplane accidents nearby. The monitoring and control of mosquito breeding is nearly impossible in dense Phragmites stands (Hellings and Gallagher 1992). In addition, Phragmites invasions can also have adverse aesthetic impacts. In Boston's Back Bay Fens, dense stands have obscured vistas intended by the park's designer, Frederick Law Olmstead (Penko, pers. comm. 1993).

As noted above Phragmites is not considered a threat in the West or most areas in the Gulf states.
Ecology & Habitat

Diagnostic Characteristics

Members of the genus Phragmites are superficially similar to Arundo. Sterile specimens of P. australis are sometimes misidentified as Arundo donax, a grass introduced to North America from Asia and now troublesome in natural areas, especially in California. The genera can be distinguished when in flower because the glumes of Phragmites are glabrous while those of Arundo are covered with soft, whitish hairs 6-8 mm long. In addition, the glumes are much shorter than the lemmas in Phragmites.

Habitat

Phragmites is especially common in alkaline and brackish (slightly saline) environments (Haslam 1972, 1971b), and can also thrive in highly acidic wetlands (Rawinski, pers. comm. 1985). However, Phragmites does not require, nor even prefer these habitats to freshwater areas. Its growth is greater in fresh water but it may be outcompeted in these areas by other species that cannot tolerate brackish, alkaline or acidic waters. It is often found in association with other wetland plants including species from the following genera: SPARTINA, CAREX, NYMPHAEA, TYPHA, GLYCERIA, JUNCUS, MYRICA, TRIGLOCHIN, CALAMAGROSTIS, GALIUM, and PHALARIS (Howard et al. 1978).

Phragmites occurs in disturbed areas as well as pristine sites. It is especially common along railroad tracks, roadside ditches, and piles of dredge spoil, wherever even slight depressions hold water (Ricciuti 1983). Penko (pers. comm. 1993) has observed stunted Phragmites growing on acidic tailings (Ph 2.9) from an abandoned copper mine in Vermont. Various types of human manipulation and/or disturbance are thought to promote Phragmites (Roman et al. 1984). For example, restriction of the tidal inundation of a marsh may result in a lowering of the water table, which may in turn favor Phragmites. Likewise, sedimentation may promote the spread of Phragmites by elevating a marsh's substrate surface and effectively reducing the frequency of tidal inundation (Klockner, pers. comm. 1985).

A number of explanations have been proposed to account for the recent dramatic increases in Phragmites populations in the northeastern and Great Lakes States. As noted above, habitat manipulations and disturbances caused by humans are thought to have a role. In some areas Phragmites may also have been promoted by the increases in soil salinity which result when de- icing salt washes off roads and into nearby ditches and wetlands (McNabb and Batterson 1991). On the other hand, bare patches of road sand washed into ditches and wetlands may be of greater importance. Phragmites seeds are shed from November through January and so may be among the first propagules to reach these sites. If the seeds germinate and become established the young plants will usually persist for at least two years in a small, rather inconspicuous stage, resembling many other grasses. Later, perhaps after the input of nutrients, they may take off and assume the tall growth form that makes the species easily identifiable . Increases in soil nutrient concentrations, may come from runoff from farms and urban areas. It has also been suggested increases in nutrient concentrations, especially nitrates, are primarily responsible for increases in Phragmites populations. Ironically, eutrophication and increases in nitrate levels are sometimes blamed for the decline of Phragmites populations in Europe (Den Hartog et al. 1989).

Ecology

Salinity and depth to the water table are among the factors which control the distribution and performance of Phragmites. Maximum salinity tolerances vary from population to population; reported maxima range from 12 ppt (1.2%) in Britain to 29 ppt in New York state to 40 ppt on the Red Sea coast (Hocking et al. 1983). Dense stands normally lose more water through evapotranspiration than is supplied by rain (Haslam 1970). However, rhizomes can reach down almost 2 meters below ground, their roots penetrating even deeper, allowing the plant to reach low lying ground water (Haslam 1970). Killing frosts may knock the plants back temporarily but can ultimately increase stand densities by stimulating bud development (Haslam 1968).

Phragmites has a low tolerance for wave and current action which can break its culms (vertical stems) and impede bud formation in the rhizomes (Haslam 1970). It can survive, and in fact thrive, in stagnant waters where the sediments are poorly aerated at best (Haslam 1970). Air spaces in the above-ground stems and in the rhizomes themselves assure the underground parts of the plant with a relatively fresh supply of air. This characteristic and the species' salinity tolerance allow it to grow where few others can survive (Haslam 1970). In addition the build up of litter from the aerial shoots within stands prevents or discourages other species from germinating and becoming established (Haslam 1971a). The rhizomes and adventitious roots themselves form dense mats that further discourage competitors. These characteristics are what enable Phragmites to spread, push other species out and form monotypic stands.

Such stands may alter the wetlands they colonize, eliminating habitat for valued animal species. On the other hand, the abundant cover of litter in Phragmites stands may provide habitat for some small mammals, insects and reptiles. The aerial stems provide nesting sites for several species of birds, and Song Sparrows have been seen eating Phragmites' seeds (Klockner, pers. comm. 1985). Muskrats (ONDATRA ZIBETHICUS) use Phragmites for emergency cover when low lying marshes are swept by storm tides and for food when better habitats are overpopulated (Lynch et al. 1947).

Studies conducted in Europe indicate that gall-forming and stem- boring insects may significantly reduce growth of Phragmites (Durska 1970; Pokorny 1971). Skuhravy (1978) estimated that roughly one-third of the stems in a stand may be damaged reducing stand productivity by 10-20%. Mook and van der Toorn (1982) found yields were reduced by 25 to 60% in stands heavily infested with lepidopteran stem- or rhizome-borers. Hayden (1947) suggested that aphids (HYALOPTERUS PRUNI) heavily damaged a Phragmites stand in Iowa. On the other hand work in Europe by Pintera (1971) indicated that although high densities of aphids may bring about reductions in Phragmites shoot height and leaf area they had little effect on shoot weight. Like other emergent macrophytes, Phragmites has tough leaves and appears to suffer little grazing by leaf-chewing insects (Penko 1985).

As mentioned above, there is great concern about recent declines in Phragmites in Europe where the species is still used for thatch. In fact, the journal Aquatic Botany devoted an entire issue (volume 35 no.1, September 1989) to this subject. Factors believed responsible for the declines include habitat destruction and manipulation of hydrologic regimes by humans, grazing, sedimentation and decreased water quality (eutrophication) (Ostendorp 1989).

Detailed reviews of the ecology and physiological ecology of Phragmites are provided by Haslam (1972; 1973) and Hocking et al. (1983) and an extensive bibliography is provided by van der Merff et al. (1987).

Reproduction

Phragmites is typically the dominant species on areas that it occupies. It is capable of vigorous vegetative reproduction and often forms dense, virtually monospecific stands. Hara et al. (1993) classify sparse stands as those with densities of less than 100 culms m-2 and dense stands as those with densities of up to about 200 culms m-2 in wet areas or up to 300 culms m-2 in dry areas. Mammalian and avian numbers and diversity in the dense stands are typically low (Jones and Lehman 1987). Newly opened sites may be colonized by seed or by rhizome fragments carried to the area by humans in soils and on machinery during construction or naturally in floodwaters.

The plants generally flower and set seed between July and September and may produce great quantities of seed. In the northeast, seeds are dispersed between November and January. However, in some cases, most or all of the seed produced is not viable (Tucker 1990). The seeds are normally dispersed by wind but may be transported by birds such as red-winged blackbirds that nest among the reeds (Haslam 1972). Following seed set, nutrients are translocated down into the rhizomes and the above- ground portions of the plant die back for the season (Haslam 1968).

Temperature, salinity and water levels affect seed germination. Water depths of more than 5 cm and salinities above 20 ppt (2%) prevent germination (Kim et al. 1985; Tucker 1990). Germination is not affected by salinities below 10 ppt (1%) but declines at higher salinities. Percentage germination increases with increasing temperature from 16 to 25 oC while the time required to germinate decreases from 25 to 10 days over the same temperature range. Barry Truitt (pers. comm. 1992) has observed that areas covered by thick mats of wrack washed up during storms and high water events are frequently colonized by Phragmites on the Virginia Coast Reserve. It is not clear whether it establishes from rhizome pieces washed in with the wrack or from seed that blows in later.

Once a new stand of Phragmites takes hold it spreads, predominantly through vegetative reproduction. Individual rhizomes live for 3 to 6 years and buds develop at the base of the vertical type late in the summer each year. These buds mature and typically grow about 1 meter (up to 10 m in newly colonized, nutrient-rich areas) horizontally before terminating in an upward apex and going dormant until spring. The apex then grows upward into a vertical rhizome which in turn produces buds that will form more vertical rhizomes. Vertical rhizomes also produce horizontal rhizome buds, completing the vegetative cycle. These rhizomes provide the plant with a large absorbent surface that brings the plant nutrients from the aquatic medium (Chuchova and Arbuzoba 1970). The aerial shoots arise from the rhizomes. They are most vigorous at the periphery of a stand where they arise from horizontal rhizomes, as opposed to old verticals (Haslam 1972).
Terrestrial Habitats
Grassland/herbaceousUrban/edificarian
Palustrine Habitats
FORESTED WETLANDBog/fen
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
ColoradoS4Yes
NebraskaSNRYes
OhioSNRYes
WyomingS3Yes
GeorgiaSNANo
MassachusettsSNRYes
North CarolinaS3Yes
AlabamaSNRYes
MissouriSNRYes
New YorkSNRYes
NevadaSNRYes
District of ColumbiaSNRYes
KansasSNRYes
North DakotaSNRYes
MaineSNRYes
OregonSNRYes
MarylandSNRYes
IllinoisS3Yes
WashingtonSNRYes
FloridaSNRYes
PennsylvaniaSNANo
VirginiaSNRYes
IdahoSNRYes
TexasSNRYes
OklahomaSNRYes
IndianaSUYes
ArizonaSNRYes
LouisianaSNRYes
WisconsinSNRYes
UtahSNRYes
MinnesotaSNRYes
VermontSNRYes
West VirginiaSNANo
South DakotaSNRYes
New HampshireSNRYes
TennesseeSNRYes
ConnecticutSNANo
New MexicoSNRYes
CaliforniaSNRYes
MississippiSNRYes
KentuckySNANo
MontanaS4Yes
MichiganSNRYes
IowaS4Yes
Rhode IslandSNANo
New JerseySNAYes
DelawareSNRYes
South CarolinaSNRYes
CanadaN5
ProvinceRankNative
New BrunswickS4Yes
Nova ScotiaS4Yes
SaskatchewanS4Yes
OntarioSUYes
ManitobaS5Yes
AlbertaS4Yes
QuebecSNRYes
Northwest TerritoriesSUYes
Island of NewfoundlandSNANo
Prince Edward IslandS3Yes
British ColumbiaS5Yes
Plant Characteristics
DurationPERENNIAL, SUMMER-FLOWERING
Economic Value (Genus)No
Roadless Areas (39)
Arizona (1)
AreaForestAcres
Black CrossTonto National Forest5,966
California (8)
AreaForestAcres
Birch CreekInyo National Forest28,816
Black CanyonInyo National Forest32,421
Boundary Peak (CA)Inyo National Forest210,884
MonoLos Padres National Forest28,141
PaiuteInyo National Forest58,712
Salt CreekAngeles National Forest11,022
Soldier CanyonInyo National Forest40,589
Wonoga Pk.Inyo National Forest11,272
Michigan (1)
AreaForestAcres
FibreHiawatha National Forest7,432
Minnesota (2)
AreaForestAcres
Kawishiwi Lake To SawbillSuperior National Forest15,305
Wood LakeSuperior National Forest596
Nevada (2)
AreaForestAcres
Snake - Big WashHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest4,146
Snake - HatcheryHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest4,627
North Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Long X DivideDakota Prairie Grasslands10,099
Oregon (1)
AreaForestAcres
Sky Lakes AWinema National Forest3,940
Utah (19)
AreaForestAcres
0401011Ashley National Forest30,062
418014Uinta National Forest9,683
418016Uinta National Forest35,240
418024Uinta National Forest51,699
418025Uinta National Forest32,698
418027Uinta National Forest13,884
418040Uinta National Forest1,702
Burch CreekWasatch-Cache National Forest6,938
CottonwoodDixie National Forest6,754
Lewis PeakWasatch-Cache National Forest11,616
Lone Peak ContiguousWasatch-Cache National Forest874
Mt. AireWasatch-Cache National Forest9,681
Mt. Logan NorthWasatch-Cache National Forest18,930
Mt. Logan SouthWasatch-Cache National Forest17,014
Mt. NaomiWasatch-Cache National Forest41,922
Mt. OlympusWasatch-Cache National Forest9,982
North FrancisWasatch-Cache National Forest8,148
Twin PeaksWasatch-Cache National Forest6,157
WellsvilleWasatch-Cache National Forest1,717
Vermont (3)
AreaForestAcres
Bread LoafGreen Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,768
Griffith Lake 09084Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,833
Woodford 09086Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests2,456
Wyoming (1)
AreaForestAcres
0401036Ashley National Forest6,309
References (110)
  1. Ailes, I. 1985. Biologist, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Telephone conversation with Marianne Marks.
  2. Ailes, I. 1991. Biologist, Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  3. Ailes, M. 1992. Ecologist, U. S. Navy. Telephone coversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  4. Ailstock, M. S., T. W. Suman and D. H. Williams. 1990. Environmental impacts, treatment, methodologies and mangement criteria for establishment of a statewide policy for the control of the marsh plant Phragmites; year two. Maryland Department of Natural Resources report. 27 pp. + appendices.
  5. Anderson, J. 1992. Biologist, Massachusetts Audubon Society. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  6. Beall, D. 1991. Refuge Manager, Brigantine National Wildlife Reguge. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  7. Beall, D. L. 1984. Brigantine Division - Marsh vegetation rehabilitation - chemical control of phragmites. USFWS, 8 p.
  8. Bjork, J. 1967. Ecological investigation of Phragmites communis -studies in theoretic and applied limnology. Folia limnologica Scandinavica 14. Lund, Sweden 248 pp.
  9. Boar, R. R., C. E. Crook and B. Moss. 1989. Regression of Phragmites australis reedswamps and recent changes of water chemistry in the Norfolk Broadland, England. Aquatic Botany 35: 41-55.
  10. Bongiorno, S. F., J. R. Trautman, T. J. Steinke, S. Kawa-Raymond and D. Warner. 1984. A study of restoration in Pine Creek Salt Marsh, Fairfield, Connecticut. In F. J. Webb (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference in Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, FL.
  11. Boone, J. 1991. University of Georgia, Athens. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  12. Boone, J., E. Furbish and K. Turner. 1987. Control of Phragmites communis: results of burning, cutting, and covering with plastic in a North Carolina marsh. CPSU technical report 41, National Park Service. 15 pp.
  13. Boone, J., E. Furbish, K. Turner, and S. Bratton. 1988. Clear plastic. A non-chemical herbicide. Restoration & Management Notes 6(2):101.
  14. Brandt, S. J. 1983. A health and environmental report on Rodeo herbicide. Monsanto Agricultural Products Company, St. Louis, MO. 3 pp.
  15. Breternitz, D. A., C. K. Robinson and G. T. Gross. 1986. Dolores archaeological program: Final synthetic report. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
  16. Chuzhoza, A. P. and L. Y. Arbuzova. 1970. Specific morphological and biological features of aquatic adventitious roots in Phragmites communis.
  17. Clayton, W. D. 1965. The correct name of the common reed. Taxon 17:157-158.
  18. Comes, R. D., V. F. Bruns and A. D. Kelly. 1976. Residues and persistence of glyphosate in irrigaiton water. Weed Science 24:47-58.
  19. Cross, D. H. and K. L. Fleming. 1989. Control of Phragmites or common reed. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12. 5pp.
  20. Daly, P. 1991. Refuge manger, Bombay Hook, Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuges. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  21. Daly, P. D. 1984. Prime Hook Narrative Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 15 pp.
  22. Den, H., C.J. Kvet, and H. Sukopp. 1989. Reed. A common species in decline. Aquatic Botany, 35: 1-4.
  23. Dobberteen, R. 1991. Wildlife biologist, Lelito Environmental Consultants. Peabody, MA. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  24. Dowlen, D. 1985. Everglades National Park, FL. Telephone conversation wit Marianne Marks. 1985.
  25. Droege, M. 1991. Stewardship Director, Maryland Office, The Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  26. Durska, B. 1970. Changes in the reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) condition caused by diseases of fungal and animal origin. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol. 17:373-396.
  27. Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.
  28. Folmar, L. C., H. O. Sanders and A. M. Julin. 1979. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:269-278.
  29. Graneli, W. 1989. Influence of standing litter on shoot production in reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steudel. Aquat. Bot. 35:99-109.
  30. Hara, T., J. van der Toorn and J. H. Mook. 1993. Growth dynamics and size structure of shoots of Phragmites australis, a clonal plant. J. Ecol. 81:47-60.
  31. Haslam, S. M. 1968. The biology of reed (Phragmites communis) in relation to its control. Proc. 9th BR. Weed Control Cong. pp. 382-387
  32. Haslam, S. M. 1970. The performance of Phragmites communis Trin. in relation to water supply. Ann. Bot. N. S. 34:867-877.
  33. Haslam, S. M. 1971a. Community regulation in <i>Phragmites communis</i> Trin. I. monodominant stands. J. Ecol 59:65-73.
  34. Haslam, S. M. 1971b. The development and establishment of young plants of <i>Phragmites communis</i> Trin. Ann. Bot. N. S. 35:1059-1072.
  35. Haslam, S. M. 1972. Phragmites communis Trin. biological flora of the British Isles. Journal of Ecology, 60: 585-610.
  36. Hauber, Dan. 1992. Faculty member, Department of Biological Sciences, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Telephone conversation with John Randall. Septmeber 1992.
  37. Hauber, D.P., D.A. White, S.P. Powers, and F.R. DeFrancesch. 1991. Isozyme variation and correspondence with unusual infrared reflectance patterns in <i>Phragmites australis</i> (Poaceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 178: 1-8.
  38. Hayden, A. 1947. Notes on destructive factors operating among the emergent plants of the Ruthven area in the summer of 1947. Qrt. Rep. Iowa Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit. 44:331-343.
  39. Healey, Joann. 1992. Biologist, Parker National Wildlife Refuge. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  40. Hellings, S.E. and J.L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29: 41-49.
  41. Hitchcock, A. S. and A. Chase. 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States, second edition. USDA miscellaneous Publication No. 200. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. 1051 pp.
  42. Hocking, P.J., C.M. Finlayson. and A.J. Chick. 1983. The biology of Australian weeds. 12. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, 49: 123-132.
  43. Howard, R., D. G. Rhodes, J. W. Simmers. 1978. a review of the biology and potential control techniques for phragmites australis. U. S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 80 pp.
  44. Huffman, Mary. 1992. Project Director, Lake Wales Project, Florida, The Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  45. Johnson, E. 1991. Stewardship Director, New Jersey Field Office, The Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  46. Johnstone, Rick. 1991. Delmarva Power. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  47. Jones, W. L., and W. C. Lehman. 1987. <i>Phragmites </i>control and revegetation following aerial applications of glyphosate in Delaware. In W. R. Whitman and W. H. Meredith (eds.). Waterfowl and Wetlands Symposium. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.
  48. Jontos, R., Jr., and C. P. Allan. 1984. Test salt to control <i>Phragmites </i>in salt marsh restoration (Connecticut). Rest. and Mgmt. Notes 2(1):32.
  49. Jontos, Robert Jr. 1992. Consultant, Land-Tech Consultants. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  50. 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.
  51. Kartesz, J.T., and R. Kartesz. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada and Greenland. Vol. 2. The biota of North America. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 500 pp.
  52. Keene, Chuck. 1991. Biologist, Museum of Hudson Highlands. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  53. Kim, K. S., Y. S. Moon and C. K. Lim. 1985. Effect of NaCl on germination of Atriplex gmelini and Phragmites communis (in Korean with English abstract). Korean Journal of Botany 28:253-259.
  54. Klockner, W. 1985. Stewardship Director, Maryland Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Telephone conversation with Marianne Marks. June 1985.
  55. Lefor, M. W. 1992. Wetland biologist, University of Connecticut. Telephone conversation and in-person interview with Beth Lapin. February 1992.
  56. Lefor, M. W. 1993. Wetalnd biologist, University of Connecticut. Letter to John M. Randall. March 1993.
  57. Lehman, W. 1992. Biologist, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  58. Lehman, W. C. 1984. Project Benchmark. Ecological factors governing growth of phragmites and preliminary investigation of phragmites control with glyphosate. DE Div. of Fish and Wildlife. 30 pp.
  59. Lynch, J. J., T. O'Neill and D. E. Lay. 1947. Management and significance of damage by geese and muskrats to gulf coast marshes. J. Wildlife Mngmt. 11:50-76.
  60. Mason, H. L. 1969. A flora of the marshes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 878 pp.
  61. Matoh, T., N. Matsushita and E. Takahashi. 1988. Salt tolerance of the reed plant Phragmites communis. Physiologia Planarum 72:8-14.
  62. McKee, K. L., I. A. Mendelssohn, and D. M. Burdick. 1989. Effect of long-term flooding on root metabolic response in five freshwater marsh plant species. Can. J. Bot. 67:3446-3452.
  63. McNabb, C.D. and T.R. Batterson. 1991. Occurrence of the comon reed, <i>Phragmites australis</i>, along roadsides in lower Michigan. Michigan Academician, 23: 211-220.
  64. Metzler, K. and R. Rozsa. 1987. Additional notes on the tidal wetlands of the Connecticut River. Connecticut Botanical Society Newsletter, 15: 1-6.
  65. Monsanto Co. 1985. Rodeo aquatic herbicide; complete directions for use in aquatic sites. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO. 3 pp.
  66. Mook, J. H. and J. Van der Toorn. 1982. The influence of environmental factors and management on stands of Phragmites australis. II. Effects on yield and its relationships with shoot density. J. Appl. Ecol. 19:501-517.
  67. Morse, Larry E. Personal Communication. North American Botanist, NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Formerly Chief Botanist, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
  68. Niering, W. A. and R. S. Warren. 1977. Our dynamic tidal marshes: vegetation changes as revealed by peat analysis. Connecticut Arboretum Bulletin 12. 22 pp.
  69. Niniviaggi, Dominick. 1991. Marine resources specialist, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection, Department of Environmental Conservation, Stoney Brook, NY. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  70. Nugent, R. 1991. Director, Tinicum Environmental Center in John Hindes National Wildlife Refuge, Pennsylvania. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  71. Ostendorp, W. 1989. 'Die-back' of reeds in Europe - a critical review of literature. Aquatic Botany, 35: 5-26.
  72. Ostendorp, W. 1991. Damage by episodic flooding to Phragmites reeds in a prealpine lake: proposal of a model. Oecologia 86:119-124.
  73. Osterbrock, A. J. 1984. Phragmites australis. The problem and potential solutions. Ohio Field Office, Stewardship. 8 pp.
  74. Parris, R. 1991. Biologist, Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, Shirley, New York. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  75. Penko, J. M. 1985. Ecological studies of Typha in Minnesota: Typha-insect interactions, and the productivity of floating stands. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota.
  76. Penko, J. M. 1993. Ecologist, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA. Letter to John M. Randall. April 1993.
  77. Pintera, A. 1971. Some observations on mealy plum aphid, Hyalopterus pruni Geoffi, occurring on reeds. Hidrobiologia (Bucharest) 12:293-295.
  78. Pokorny, B. 1971. Flies of the genus Lipara meigen on common reed. Hidrobiologia (Bucharest) 12:287-292.
  79. Poole, J. 1985. Botanist, Texas Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy. Letter to Marianne Marks. March 1985.
  80. Raicu, P., S. Staicu, V. Stoian and T. Roman. 1972. Phragmites communis Trin. complement in the Danube Delta. Hydrobiologia 39:83-89
  81. Randall, John. Wildland Weeds Program, The Nature Conservancy, c/o Dept. Weed Science, Univ. California, Davis.
  82. Rawinski, T. 1985. Common reed (Phragmites australis) in a select group of New York/New England natural areas, an overview. Eastern Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy. 6 pp.
  83. Rawinski, T. 1985. Ecologist, Eastern Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy. Conversation with Marianne Marks. July 1985.
  84. Rawinski, T. 1992. Ecologist, Virginia Heritage Program. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. February 1992.
  85. Reimer, D.N. 1973. Effects of rate, spray volume, and surfactant on the control of <i>Phragmites </i>with glyphosate. Proceedings of the Northeast Weed Science Society, 27: 101-104.
  86. Ricciuti, E. R. 1983. The all too common, common reed. Audubon Magazine. Sept. 1983. p. 65-66.
  87. Rodewald-Rudescu, L. 1974. Das Schilfrohr. Die Binnengewasser, No. 27. E. Scweiterbartsche Verlagbuchhanlung, Stuttgart, Germany. 294 pp.
  88. Rod, J. 1992. Manager, Constitution Marsh, National Audubon Society. Telephne conversation with Beth Lapin. February 1992.
  89. Roman, C.T., W.A. Niering, and R.S. Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in response to tidal restricition. Environmental Management, 8: 141-150.
  90. Rozsa, R. 1992. Biologist, Department of Environmental Protection. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. February 1992.
  91. Saltonstall, Kristin. Graduate student, Dept. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn.
  92. Schneider, K. 1991. Coordinator, New York Heritage Program. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. October 1990.
  93. Seidel, T. 1991. Stewardship and Volunteer Coordinator, Ohio Office, The Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. August 1992.
  94. Skuhravy, V. 1978. Invertebrates: destroyers of the common reed. pp. 376-388. In D. Dykyjova and J. Kvet (editors) Pond Littoral Ecosystems Structure and Functioning. Springer-Verlag.
  95. Sorrie, B. 1985. Botanist, Massachusets Natural Heritage Program. Letter to Marianne Marks. April 1985.
  96. Stark, H. and M. Dienst. 1989. Dynamixs of lakeside reed belts at Lake Constance (Untersee) from 1984 to 1987. Aquatic Botany 35:63-70.
  97. Steinke, T. 1992. Conversation commissioner, Fairfield, CT. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. August 1992.
  98. Sukopp, H. and B. Markstein. 1989, Changes of the reed beds along the Berlin Havel, 1962-1987. Aquatic Botany 35:27-39.
  99. Thompson, D.J. and J.M. Shay. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany 63:1964-1869.
  100. Thompson, D.J. and J.M. Shay. 1989. First-year response of a <i>Phragmites </i>marsh community to seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany, 67: 1448-1455.
  101. Truitt, Barry. 1992. Steward, Virginia Coast Reserve, Nassawadox, Virginia. Interview with John Randall. December 1992.
  102. Tscharntke, T. 1988. Variability of the grass Phragmites australis in relation to the behavior and mortality of the gall-inducing midge Giraudiella inclusa (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae). Oecologia 76:504-512.
  103. Tucker, G.C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoideae (Gramineae) in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 71: 145-177.
  104. Turner, K. 1992. Chief of Resource Management, Lake Mead Recreation Area, Nevada. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. January 1992.
  105. van der Merff, M., J. W. Simmers and S. H. Kay. 1987. Biology, management and utilization of common reed <i>Phragmites australis</i>. U. S. Army report, Contract number DAJA45-86-M-0482. 101 pp.
  106. van der Toorn, J. and J. H. Mook. 1982. The influence of environmental factors and management on stands of <i>Phragmites australis</i>. I. Effects of burning, frost and insect damage on shoot density and shoot size. J. Appl. Ecol 19:477-499.
  107. van Deursen, E. J. M., and H. J. Drost. 1990. Defoliation and treading by cattle of reed <i>Phragmites australis</i>. J. Appl. Ecol. 27:284-297.
  108. Weisner, W. E. B., and W. Graneli. 1989. Influence of substrate conditions on the growth of <i>Phragmites australis</i> after a reduction in oxygen trasport to below-ground parts. Aquatic Botany 35:71-80.
  109. Wheelwright, M. 1991. Department of Public Works. Quincy, MA. Telephone conversation with Beth Lapin. November 1991.
  110. Young, J. 1985. Land Steward Florida Field Office, The Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Marianne Marks. May 1985.