|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
ABBREVIATION :
PHRAUS
SYNONYMS :
Phragmites communis Trin.
SCS PLANT CODE :
PHAU7
COMMON NAMES :
common reed
giant reed
giant reedgrass
roseau
roseau cane
yellow cane
cane
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of common reed is Phragmites
australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steudel [14,50]. There are no recognized
subspecies, varieties, or forms.
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Ronald Uchytil, June 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Uchytil, Ronald J. 1992. Phragmites australis. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Common reed has a nearly worldwide distribution. It grows in North
America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. In North
America, its range extends from Nova Scotia to British Columbia
southward throughout most of the United States and Mexico. It is absent
from some inland areas of the South Atlantic States [22,28,50].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands
STATES :
AL AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA ID
IL IN IA KS LA ME MD MA MI MN
MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC
ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX
UT VT VA WV WA WI WY AB BC MB
NB NF NS ON PQ SK MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
AMIS APIS ARCH ASIS BADL BIBE
BICY BICA CACH CANY CACO CAHA
CARE CHCU COLM CUVA DEVA DEWA
DINO EVER FIIS GATE GLCA GRTE
GUIS INDU ISRO JELA JOTR LAME
LAMR MEVE NABR NERI OLYM ORPI
PEFO RICH SAMO SLBE VAFO WUPA
ZION
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K049 Tule marshes
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K078 Southern cordgrass prairie
K080 Marl - everglades
K081 Oak savanna
K092 Evergaldes
K094 Conifer bog
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K106 Northern hordwoods
K113 Southern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
5 Balsam fir
13 Black spruce - tamarack
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
38 Tamarack
42 Bur oak
97 Atlantic white-cedar
101 Baldcypress
102 Baldcypress - tupelo
235 Cottonwood - willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon - juniper
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Thoughout most of its range, common reed typically forms closed,
monodominant stands along marsh and slough edges [3,16,31]. These
stands are often dense, with up to 19 stems (live and dead) per square
foot (200/sq m) [5]. In coastal marshes of the southeastern United
States, common reed often codominates with big cordgrass (Spartina
cynosuroides) along the upland edge of the marsh [28,34].
Publications describing common reed dominated communities are listed
below:
Plant ecology of spring-fed salt marshes in western Utah [3].
Riparian dominance types of Montana [16].
Plant associations of Region Two [23].
A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado [1].
Plant communities in the marshlands of southeastern Louisiana [34].
Vegetation of a prairie marsh [31].
The vegetation of the Canadian prairie provinces III. Aquatic and
semiaquatic vegetation [29].
The vegetation of the Canadian prairie provinces III. Aquatic and
semiaquatic vegetation, Part 2. Freshwater marshes and bogs [30].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Common reed is a high quality livestock forage during early growth
stages. At this time it is readily eaten by cattle and horses and may
be cut for hay. After maturity, however, it becomes tough and
unpalatable [16,28].
Common reed is not an important wildlife food. Occasionally, seeds are
eaten by waterfowl, and rhizomes and stems by muskrats [33].
PALATABILITY :
Common reed is highly palatable to livestock and wildlife when plants
are young and growing vigorously [16]. This period of high palatability
lasts for only a few weeks in Manitoba [48]. After maturity common reed
becomes unpalatable [28].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Common reed's energy value is rated as fair and its protein value as
poor [7]. In the Southeast, livestock should be fed a protein
supplement when grazing this grass in the winter [28].
COVER VALUE :
Nesting cover: Common reed often grows in vast, unbroken stands along
marsh edges. These stands are typically dense and impenetrable, and
except for the stand edge, are of little value to nesting waterfowl.
Ward [48,49] reported that the interior of large common reed stands at
the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, were practically void of nesting ducks.
Stand edges, however, were frequently used; 31 percent of 147 duck nests
were found there. The most common duck species nesting in common reed
edges were the mallard, lesser scaup, canvasback, ruddy duck, and
redhead. Conversely, Cross [4] found that both the interior and edges
of common reed stands provided poor waterfowl nesting habitat. She
cited studies at Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Utah, and
at the Delta Marsh in Manitoba, where only 4 to 6 percent of duck nests
were found in common reed, all near the stand edge. At Fish Springs
NWR, only snowy egrets, black-crowned night herons, and yellow-headed
blackbirds nested in the interior of common reed stands.
Hiding and thermal cover: Common reed provides good cover for
flightless adult ducks during their molting period [42,48]. Common
reed's height and density make it useful as hiding and escape cover for
big game species like deer [16,49].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Common reed is an excellent soil stabilizer and spreads rapidly. It is
used in many wetland rehabilitation and stabilization projects. It is
used to revegetate disturbed riparian areas, control shore erosion,
stabilize river and canal banks, and reduce wave action on watershed
structures. It is best established by spring transplanting of sprigs or
plugs collected from local stands. The cultivar 'Shoreline' is
available for use in the southern part of the Central Great Plains
[25,45].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
A cosmopolitan species, common reed has been cultivated and used for
many purposes around the world. In Europe, it is used as thatching, to
make mats, and as fodder and bedding for cattle. The aerial stems are
sometimes used as a cellulose source in the paper and textile industries
[19]. Native peoples of the American Southwest used the stems to make
arrow shafts, prayer sticks, weaving rods, pipestems, mats, screens,
nets, and thatching [24]. They also used the rootstocks and seeds as
food. In the Southwest, it is also used for lattices and in the
construction of adobe huts [22].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Control: Because of its undesirable qualities [see Cover Value],
control of common reed in marshes managed for waterfowl is sometimes
necessary. However, because waterfowl may benefit from mixing common
reed with other marsh plant species or open water, complete eradication
is seldom warranted [5]. Aerial applications of systemic herbicides
applied when plants are actively growing can control common reed.
Amitrole, dalapon, and glyphosate are the most effective. Some
researchers have found that split applications at one-half the dosage,
with the second application 15 to 30 days after the first, are more
effective than a single application [5]. Mechanical control includes
discing or plowing, crushing, mowing, and dredging. Summer mowing
greatly reduces common reed on sites that become dry during the summer
but is ineffective on sites that remain moist [48]. At the Delta Marsh
in Manitoba, common reed was replaced by a shortgrass-sedge-thistle
meadow after 3 successive years of summer mowing [48]. In Britain,
cutting during July resulted in a 40 percent reduction in aboveground
biomass the following growing season [19]. Grazing is not recommended
as a control measure in waterfowl management areas because the amount of
grazing needed to reduce stands would be detrimental to desirable plant
species as well [5].
Grazing: Common reed is moderately tolerant of grazing, but prolonged
heavy grazing tends to reduce the extent and size of stands [15]. For
maximum production in the Southeast, no more than 50 percent of the
current year's growth by weight should be grazed during the growing
season [28].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Common reed is a tall, native, warm-season, perennial, sod-forming
grass. The culms are erect, rigid, smooth, and hollow. They may be
nearly 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter and from 6 to 13 feet (2-4 m) tall,
terminating in a 12-inch-long (30 cm) dense panicle. Leaves arise from
the culm and are mostly 10 to 20 inches long (25-50 cm) and 0.4 to 2
inches (1-5 cm) wide [13,14]. Common reed has an extensive rhizome
network and occasionally produces stolons as well. Rhizome depth has
been variously reported: (1) 18 to 39 inches (40-100 cm) [19]; (2)
mostly between 4 and 12 inches (10-30 cm), but up to 39 inches (100 cm)
[11]; and (3) mostly between 8 and 39 inches (20-100 cm), but up to 78
inches (200 cm) [5]. Roots grow down to a depth of about 3.3 feet (1 m)
[5].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Cryptophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Common reed's primary mode of reproduction is vegetative. Its extensive
rhizome network is responsible for the maintenance and expansion of
existing stands. Annual rhizome lateral spread averaged 16 inches (40
cm) in common reed stands in Wisconsin [6]. In Europe, lateral rhizome
spread has been as great as 3.3 to 6.6 feet (1-2 m) per year [20].
Stolons, which may grow up to 4.25 inches (10.8 cm) per day, are
produced in young stands or over open water and further aid in rapid
stand expansion [5,39].
Common reed is a relatively good seed producer. The seeds are dispersed
by wind and water and become a part of the marsh seed bank. Seed
banking can be important in establishing new plants in vegetation-free
areas following marsh drawdown. However, seeds of common reed are much
less abundant in the marsh seed bank that are seeds of other marsh
emergents such as cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.).
Natural germination of common reed is uncommon, and successful seedling
establishment is rare [39,41].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Common reed grows on level ground in freshwater marshes, oxbow lakes,
swales, and backwater areas of river and streams. It also grows around
springs and along pond and lake margins, streambanks, and irrigation
ditches [16,28,42]. It does not grow in permanently standing water but
rather is found on sites with high water tables or sites that are
seasonally flooded with not more than 20 inches (50 cm) of water
[3,31,39].
Soil: Common reed grows on most soil textures from fine clays to sandy
loams and is somewhat tolerant of saline or alkaline conditions [16].
In southern Manitoba, it grows on soils with a pH ranging from 6.4 to
8.1 [39].
Associated species: Common reed typically grows in closed, monodominant
stands but is sometimes associated with cattail, bulrush, and arrowhead
(Sagittaria spp.) in wetter habitats, and with white-top grass
(Scholochloa festucacea), thistle (Circium spp.), sedge (Carex spp.),
dock (Rumex spp.), northern reedgrass (Calamagrostis inexpansa), reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and American mannagrass (Glyceria
grandis) in drier habitats [16,31].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Common reed is an aggressive competitor. Once established it tends to
outcompete and eliminate marsh species with similar habitat requirements
to form large, unbroken, climax stands [5,8,49].
Common reed has replaced brackish water species in some coastal wetlands
where the installation of tidal gates has resulted in decreased water
salinity [9].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Common reed is a warm-season grass that begins growth in the late spring
usually after the last frost. Shoots emerge in late May in southern
Manitoba [43], in April or May in Connecticut [18], in February in the
Southeast [28], and from April to June in Utah [5]. The period of shoot
emergence may last from 1 to 3 months [5]. Large buds formed the
previous fall are the first to emerge, with smaller buds emerging later
[5]. The shoots are sensitive to frost. If killed by frost, one to
three side shoots develop from the side of the frosted shoot [18].
Spring-formed buds are small and remain dormant below the soil surface,
ready to emerge as a replacement crop following disturbance [5].
Following emergence, stems grow rapidly (up to 1.6 inches (4 cm) per
day). In southern Manitoba stems attain their maximum height by the end
of July and maximum biomass by mid-August [43]. The foliage stays green
until frost in the fall, and thereafter becomes brittle and turns a pale
yellow. Stems remain standing throughout the winter [5].
Time of flowering has been reported as follows:
Colorado - July through September [7]
North Dakota - August and September [7]
Utah - mid-July through August [5]
Wyoming - July through September [7]
Great Plains - June to October, mostly July to September [14]
New England - mid-August to late September [38]
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Common reed's rhizomes are deeply buried in soil and are often under
water as well. The heat from most fires does not penetrate deep enough
into the soil to injure these regenerative structures. For example, in
drained common reed stands along the Great Salt Lake, Utah, soil
temperatures at a depth of 1 inch (2.5 cm) did not exceed 118 degrees
Fahrenheit (48 deg C) during an early September fire [40]. When fire
consumes the aboveground foliage, new top-growth is initiated from the
surviving rhizomes.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Flammability: Common reed stands are typically dense and contain much
dead material. Standing dead canes and litter often constitute twice as
much biomass as living shoots [39]. This abundant dead fuel carries
fire well, allowing stands to burn during midsummer when the current
year's shoots are green. At the Delta Marsh in Manitoba, spring, summer
or fall burning removed more than 90 percent of living and dead plant
material [43]. In a Nebraska common reed stand, a late February
prescribed burn when the marsh was frozen removed all aboveground
vegetation except for a 2- to 6-inch-tall (5-15 cm) stubble layer which
apparently resulted from a vapor zone from accompanying steam [37].
Rhizome damage: Most fires cause little damage to common reed because
the rhizomes are sufficiently protected by soil. Rhizomes can be
damaged, however, by deep-burning fires which can occur when the soil is
dry and the humidity of the litter and stembase is low. The effects of
severe burning depend on the degree of damage inflicted upon the
rhizomes. Following some severe fires, shoot emergence the following
spring can be delayed for 1 to 2 months. The most damaging fires occur
during drought years when entire peat layers can be consumed. This
destroys the rhizomes and eliminates common reed from the area [21].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Most fires favor common reed. Fire removes the standing dead canes and
accumulated litter, allowing the soil to warm up rapidly in the spring,
which results in earlier shoot emergence [43]. Stands burned during the
spring (before shoot emergence or during early growth stages), late
summer or fall (plants green or dormant), or winter recover quickly;
preburn stem density and biomass are attained within one growing season
[44]. Although plants burned during the summer usually initiate new
top-growth within a few days, stem density is greatly reduced, and stems
regrow to only about half of normal height before killing frosts occur.
Furthermore, early to midsummer burning during the peak of plant growth
(when carbohydrate reserves are lowest) reduces stem density and
aboveground biomass for two to four growing seasons [5,44,49].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
At the Delta Marsh in Manitoba, common reed plots were burned on August
1, October 7, and May 11. The following spring, shoot emergence
occurred on May 1 on fall- and summer-burned plots, on May 19 on
spring-burned plots, and on May 26 on controls. At the end of the first
full growing season following burning, total aboveground biomass
increased on the spring-burned plots and remained unchanged on
fall-burned plots. Biomass declined on the summer burn, but the
decrease was short-lived. By the end of postfire year 2, aboveground
biomass returned to preburn levels. In the stands burned on August 1,
plants grew to 23 inches (58 cm) in height before they were killed by
frost in late October [43,44].
Another study at the Delta Marsh used summer burning in conjunction with
marsh drainage in an attempt to thin dense common reed stands [49].
Following a fire on July 21, stems grew to 4 inches (10 cm) in height
within 10 days after burning, and reached 23 inches (60 cm) in height
before being killed by frost. During the second growing season plants
grew to 50 inches (126 cm) in height, but stem density was 80 percent
below normal. Stem density remained lowered even after three growing
seasons.
When measured in June, stem density increased or remained stable in
common reed stands burned the previous June 15, August 6, or August 24
in a Utah marsh. However, stem density was 25 to 50 percent less than
unburned controls on sites burned June 29, July 13, or July 27.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
The best way to reduce common reed with prescribed burning is to burn
during the summer when carbohydrate reserves in the plant are low and
when the soil is dry [21]. From a wildlife standpoint, this opens up
the stands, making them more attractive to waterfowl [49].
Using summer burning to completely eliminate common reed is difficult.
"Root burns", in which prescribed fires burn deeply into organic soils
and consume the rhizomes, will probably only work on marshes where the
water can be completely drained or on marshes experiencing severe
drought [26].
In Utah, dalapon applied as an aerial spray 48 days after midsummer
burning effectively controlled common reed [4].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Phragmites australis | Common Reed
REFERENCES :
1. Baker, William L. 1984. A preliminary classification of the natural
vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 44(4): 647-676. [380]
2. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
3. Bolen, Eric G. 1964. Plant ecology of spring-fed salt marshes in western
Utah. Ecological Monographs. 34(2): 143-166. [11214]
4. Cross, Diana Harding. 1983. Wildlife habitat improvement by control of
Phragmites communis with fire and herbicide. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado
State University. 81 p. Thesis. [18403]
5. Cross, Diana H.; Fleming, Karen L. 1989. Control of phragmites or common
reed. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 5 p. [18396]
6. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The
University of Wisconsin Press. 657 p. [7116]
7. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information
network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
8. Dix, R. L.; Smeins, F. E. 1967. The prairie, meadow, and marsh
vegetation of Nelson County, North Dakota. Canadian Journal of Botany.
45: 21-58. [5528]
9. Dobberteen, Ross A.; Jarman, Nancy M. 1991. Restoration underway in a
common reed-dominated salt marsh. Restoration & Management Notes. 9(1):
41. [15703]
10. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
11. Fiala, Karel. 1976. Underground organs of Phragmites communis, their
growth, biomass and net production. Folia Geobotanica & Phytotaxonomica.
11: 25-259. [18398]
12. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
13. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of
southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. Athens, GA: The University
of Georgia Press. 712 p. [16906]
14. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
15. Hansen, Paul; Boggs, Keith; Pfister, Robert; Joy, John. 1990.
Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in central
and eastern Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of
Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, Montana
Riparian Association. 279 p. [12477]
16. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian
dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University
of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
17. Harris, Stanley W.; Marshall, William H. 1960. Experimental germination
of seed and establishment of seedlings of Phragmites communis. Journal
of Ecology. 41: 395. [16679]
18. Haslam, Sylvia M. 1969. The development and emergence of buds in
Phragmites communis Trin. Annals of Botany. 33: 289-301. [16685]
19. Haslam, S. M. 1972. Biological flora of the British Isles: Phragmites
communis Trin. Journal of Ecology. 60: 585-610. [16676]
20. Haslam, S. M. 1973. Some aspects of the life history and autecology of
Phragmites communis Trin.: A review. Polish Archives of Hydrobiology.
20(1): 79-100. [17261]
21. Higgins, Kenneth F.; Kruse, Arnold D.; Piehl, James L. 1989. Effects of
fire in the Northern Great Plains. Ext. Circ. EC-761. Brookings, SD:
South Dakota State University, Cooperative Extension Service, South
Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 47 p. [14749]
22. Hitchcock, A. S. 1951. Manual of the grasses of the United States. Misc.
Publ. No. 200. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Administration. 1051 p. [2nd edition revised by
Agnes Chase in two volumes. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.]. [1165]
23. Johnston, Barry C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential
plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and
Kansas. 4th ed. R2-ECOL-87-2. Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 429 p. [3519]
24. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
25. Knutson, P. L.; Woodhouse, W. W., Jr. 1983. Shore stabilization with
salt marsh vegetation. Special Rep. 9. U.S. Department of Defence, Army
Corps of Engineers. Microfiche. [18063]
26. Kruse, Arnold D.; Higgins, Kenneth F. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire
upon wildlife habitat in northern mixed-grass prairie. In: Alexander, M.
E.; Bisgrove, G. F., technical coordinators. The art and science of fire
management: Proceedings, 1st Interior West Fire Council annual meeting
and workshop; 1988 October 24-27; Kananaskis Village, AB. Inf. Rep.
NOR-X-309. Edmonton, AB: Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern
Forestry Centre: 182-193. [14146]
27. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
28. Leithead, Horace L.; Yarlett, Lewis L.; Shiflet, Thomas N. 1971. 100
native forage grasses in 11 southern states. Agric. Handb. 389.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 216 p.
[17551]
29. Looman, J. 1981. The vegetation of the Canadian prairie provinces. III.
Aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation. Phytocoenologia. 9(4): 473-497.
[18401]
30. Looman, J. 1982. The vegetation of the Canadian prairie provinces. III.
Aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation, Part 2. Freshwater marshes and
bogs. Phytocoenologia. 10(4): 401-423. [18402]
31. Love, Askell; Love, Doris. 1954. Vegetation of a prairie marsh. Bulletin
of the Torrey Botanical Club. 81(1): 16-34. [18103]
32. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
33. Martin, Alex C.; Erickson, Ray C.; Steenis, John H. 1957. Improving duck
marshes by weed control. Circular 19 (Revised). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 60
p. [16324]
34. Penfound, W. T.; Hathaway, Edward S. 1938. Plant communities in the
marshlands of southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monographs. 8(1): 3-56.
[15089]
35. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
36. Riemer, Donald N. 1971. Effects of split applications of dalapon on
phragmites. Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Control Conference. 25:
65-70. [18399]
37. Schlichtemeier, Gary. 1967. Marsh burning for waterfowl. In:
Proceedings, 6th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; 1967 March
6-7; Tallahassee, FL. No. 6. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 40-46. [16450]
38. Seymour, Frank Conkling. 1982. The flora of New England. 2d ed.
Phytologia Memoirs 5. Plainfield, NJ: Harold N. Moldenke and Alma L.
Moldenke. 611 p. [7604]
39. Shay, Jennifer M.; Shay, C. Thomas. 1986. Prairie marshes in western
Canada, with specific reference to the ecology of five emergent
macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Botany. 64: 443-454. [18397]
40. Smith, Loren Michael. 1983. Effects of prescribed burning on the ecology
of a Utah marsh. Logan, UT: Utah State University. 159 p. Dissertation.
[10218]
41. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A. 1983. Seed banks and their role during
drawdown of a North American marsh. Journal of Applied Ecology. 20:
673-684. [11196]
42. Swanson, George A.; Duebbert, Harold F. 1989. Wetland habitats of
waterfowl in the prairie pothole region. In: van der Valk, Arnold, ed.
Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press:
228-267. [15218]
43. Thompson, D. J.; Shay, J. M. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites
australis in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany. 63:
1864-1869. [11481]
44. Thompson, D. J.; Shay, Jennifer M. 1989. First-year response of a
Phragmites marsh community to seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of
Botany. 67: 1448-1455. [7312]
45. Thornburg, Ashley A. 1982. Plant materials for use on surface-mined
lands. SCS-TP-157. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 88 p. [3769]
46. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
47. Toorn, J. van der; Mook, J. H. 1982. The infl. of environ. factors &
mgt. on stands of Phragmites australis. 1. Eff. of burning, frost &
insect damage on shoot density & shoot size. Journal of Applied Ecology.
19: 477-499. [16320]
48. Ward, Edward. 1942. Phragmites management. Transactions, 7th North
American Wildlife Conference. 7: 294-298. [14959]
49. Johnsgard, Paul A. 1983. The grouse of the world. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska. 413 p. [18404]
50. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
51. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
Index
Related categories for Species: Phragmites australis
| Common Reed
|
 |
