|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
ABBREVIATION :
TYPLAT
SYNONYMS :
Massula latifolia (L.) Dulac.
SCS PLANT CODE :
TYLA
COMMON NAMES :
common cattail
cattail
broad-leaved cattail
soft flag
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of common cattail is Typha
latifolia L. [16,45].
In North America, the cattail family Typhaceae consists of a single
genus with three species:
Typha latifolia L. - common cattail
Typha angustifolia L. - narrow-leaved cattail
Typha domingensis Pers. - Dominican cattail
The distributions of these species overlap considerably in the
contiguous United States. Wherever two species occur together, hybrids
are common, especially in habitats with variable water levels [39].
Typha latifolia x T. angustifolia hybrids (T. X glauca Godr.), commonly
known as hybrid or glaucus cattail, are especially common in the Midwest
and may develop extensive pure stands by rhizomatous growth [3,16].
Common cattail also hybridizes with Dominican cattail. Hybrids are
almost always intermediate morphologically between the parental species.
This report focuses primarily on common cattail. However, since hybrid
cattail is ecologically similar, information on it has been incorporated
into some slots. When used, the reader will be alerted that the
information pertains specifically to hybrid cattail.
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Ronald Uchytil, March 1992
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Uchytil, Ronald J. 1992. Typha latifolia. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Common cattail has a nearly worldwide distribution. It grows in North
America, Central America, Great Britain, Eurasia, Africa, New Zealand,
Australia, and Japan. In North America it grows in arctic, temperate,
subtropical, and tropical regions from central Alaska and northwest
Canada to Newfoundland, and south through every province, territory, and
state to Mexico and Guatemala [12,30].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
STATES :
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA
HI ID IL IN IA KS KY 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 WA WV WI WY
AB BC LB MB NB NF NT NS ON PE
PQ SK YT MEXICO
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
ACAD AGFO ALPO AMIS APIS ARCH
ASIS BADL BIBE BICY BISO BITH
BICA CACH CANY CACO CAHA CALO
CARE CAMO CHCU CHCH COLO COLM
COSW CODA CUGA CUIS CUVA DEWA
DINO EFMO EVER FIIS FOBU GATE
GWMP GLAC GRCA GRTE GRKO GRSA
GRSM HOBE INDU ISRO JELA JECA
JODA JOFL LAME LAVO MACA MEVE
MORA NATR NABR NERI OBRI OLYM
PIRO PIPE PORE PRWI REDW RICH
ROMO SAJH SAMO SARA SCBL SLBE
THRO TICA VAFO VOYA WHIS WHSA
WICA YELL YUCH 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 :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K006 Redwood forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K025 Alder - ash forest
K027 Mesquite bosque
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K049 Tule marshes
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - three-awn shrubsteppe
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass - grama - buffalograss
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K071 Shinnery
K074 Bluestem prairie
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K078 Southern cordgrass prairie
K080 Marl - everglades
K081 Oak savanna
K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100
K090 Live oak - sea oats
K091 Cypress savanna
K092 Everglades
K093 Great Lakes spruce - fir forest
K094 Conifer bog
K095 Great Lakes pine forest
K096 Northeastern spruce - fir forest
K097 Southeastern spruce - fir forest
K098 Northern floodplain forest
K099 Maple - basswood forest
K100 Oak - hickory forest
K102 Beech - maple forest
K103 Mixed mesophytic forest
K104 Appalacian oak forest
K106 Northern hardwoods
K107 Northern hardwoods - fir forest
K108 Northern hardwoods - spruce forest
K109 Transition between K104 and K106
K111 Oak - hickory - pine forest
K113 Southern floodplain forest
K114 Pocosin
SAF COVER TYPES :
1 Jack pine
5 Balsam fir
12 Black spruce
13 Black spruce - tamarack
15 Red pine
20 White pine - northern red oak - red maple
25 Sugar maple - beech - yellow birch
26 Sugar maple - basswood
27 Sugar maple
33 Red spruce - balsam fir
35 Paper birch - red spruce - balsam fir
38 Tamarack
42 Bur oak
52 White oak - black oak - northern red oak
53 White oak
55 Northern red oak
60 Beech - sugar maple
63 Cottonwood
82 Loblolly pine - hardwood
95 Black willow
100 Pondcypress
101 Baldcypress
102 Baldcypress - tupelo
103 Water tupelo - swamp tupelo
107 White spruce
108 Red maple
110 Black oak
201 White spruce
204 Black spruce
210 Interior Douglas-fir
218 Lodgepole pine
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood - willow
223 Sitka spruce
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
235 Cottonwood - willow
237 Interior ponderosa pine
239 Pinyon - juniper
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Common cattail forms dense, nearly monospecific communities in shallow,
freshwater marshes and ponds. It also occurs as a codominant in mixed
stands with bulrush (Scirpus acutus, S. californicus) and maidencane
(Panicum hemitomon) [5,35].
Publications naming common cattail as a dominant species in riparian and
plant community classifications are listed below.
Aquatic and semiaquatic vegetation of Utah Lake and its bays [5]
Riparian dominance types of Monatana [17]
Riparian type community type classification of Utah and southeastern
Idaho [33]
Plant communities in the marshlands of southeastern Lousiana [35]
Plant communities of Voyagers National Park, Minnesota [49]
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
NO-ENTRY
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Common cattail is generally considered a poor livestock and big game
forage [8]. These animals rarely graze common cattail unless upland
forage becomes scarce [17].
Common cattail rhizomes and basal portions are an important food of
muskrat, nutria, and geese [26,29,30]. For ducks, however, common
cattail is of little value as food or cover. It is considered an
undesirable weed in marshes managed primarily for ducks [3,24]. The
seeds are too small to be an important bird food source, but are eaten
by a few species, mainly the green-winged teal, semipalmated sandpiper,
and Canada goose, snow goose, and tule goose [30].
PALATABILITY :
The palatability of common cattail foliage is low for wild ungulates and
livestock [8]. The starchy rhizomes and root stocks are palatable to
geese, muskrat, and nutria [26,29].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Common cattail's forage value is highest in the early spring, when
protein content may reach 15 percent of dry weight. However, its forage
quality declines rapidly, and by summer it is usually a poor source of
energy and protein [8,40].
COVER VALUE :
The structure and density of common cattail stands affect their
usefulness as waterfowl nesting cover. Breeding ducks rarely nest in
dense cattail stands that cover vast expanses of marsh, but are attracted
to wetlands where open water and cattail cover are well interspersed
[19]. Murkin and others [31] reported that cattail cover for nesting
dabbling ducks was best when open water and common cattail stands
covered roughly equal areas. These researchers found that the number of
nesting duck pairs increased greatly when large stands were cut in
checkerboard patterns to produce a 50:50 water-cover ratio.
Common cattail provides favored nesting sites for the red-winged
blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, and marsh wren [26]. In the Horicon
Marsh in southeastern Wisconsin, hybrid cattail (T. X glauca) stands
were used extensively for nesting by the ruddy duck, redhead, sora,
Virginia rail, least and American bittern, and common gallinule [3].
Similarly, the ruddy duck and readhead were the principal duck species
nesting in common cattail marshes in Utah [7].
Common cattail provides an excellent hut building material for muskrat
[26]. Deer sometimes use common cattail for hiding cover [17].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
NO-ENTRY
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Cattail leaves and stems have been used around the world as bedding,
thatching, and matting, and in the manufacture of baskets, boats and
rafts, shoes, ropes, and paper. In recent years, cattail has been
proposed as a biomass crop for renewable energy [12,30]. Total biomass
in southeastern Wisconsin hybrid cattail (T. X glauca) stands reached 15
tons per acre (33.6 t/ha) [3].
Native Americans used common cattail as food. Rhizomes were dried and
ground into flour or eaten as cooked vegetables; young stems were eaten
raw or cooked; and immature fruiting spikes were eaten after roasting
[12,17]. The leaves were woven for matting and the "soft down" from
ripe fruiting heads was used as padding and in diapers [30].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Common cattail is considered a weed on some irrigated agricultural lands
and in managed waterfowl production areas. On agricultural lands it
invades irrigation canals, farm ponds, and drainage ditches, impeding
water flow and increasing siltation [12]. In marshes managed for
waterfowl, it often forms dense stands which provide poor nesting
habitat [24]. Control measures include: (1) drawdown to reduce cattail
and allow the establishment of species preferred by waterfowl, (2)
cutting plants below the soil or water surface, (3) crushing, which
immediately opens up stands making the surface water available to ducks,
(4) spraying with herbicides, (5) burning [see Fire Management
Considerations], and (6) cutting, crushing, spraying, or burning in
combination with water level manipulation [3,12,22,32]. For best
results treatment should take place when carbohydrate reserves are at a
minimum. This period, when common cattail is most susceptible to
injury, occurs when the pistillate and staminate portions of the spike
are lime green and dark green, respectively [3]. Furthermore, because a
portion of cattail leaves must protrude above the water surface for
normal gas exchange to take place, regrowth following control measures
is effectively eliminated if plants are kept completely submerged
[3,12]. On marshes where water levels can be manipulated, a combination
of drawdown followed by the control treatment and rapid reflooding
results in the greatest cattail mortality.
Because of increased mobility on ice, winter cutting or burning in
northern latitudes is a cost-effective method to remove accumulated
litter and thin stands [1]. Farm machinery that could cut cattail but
would be difficult to use in marshy habitats can be used on the ice
during the winter.
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Common cattail is an erect, rhizomatous, semiaquatic or aquatic,
perennial herb. Twelve to sixteen erect, linear, flat, basal leaves
arise from each vegetative shoot, which are 0.3 to 0.6 inch (8-15 mm)
wide and 3 to 10 feet (1-3 m) tall. The stout rhizomes, which are
located 3 to 4 inches (8-10 cm) below the soil surface, grow up to 27
inches (70 cm) in length and are typically 0.2 to 1.2 inches (0.5-3 cm)
in diameter [12,30]. Common cattail is monoecious. The inflorescence
is a dark brown, cylindrical terminal spike on a stout, 3- to 10-foot
(1-3 m) stem. The staminate portion is positioned above the pistillate
portion; they are continuous or slightly separated [16,45].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Geophyte
Helophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Common cattail reproduces sexually and asexually. Vegetative
reproduction occurs through an extensive rhizome system and is
responsible for the maintenance and expansion of existing stands.
Sexual reproduction via seed dispersal and seedling establishment is
responsible for invasion of new areas.
Seed production and dispersal: Common cattail is a prolific producer of
minute seeds. Each spike may contain 117,000 to 268,000 seeds [47]. At
maturity, the spike bursts under dry conditions, releasing the fruits.
Each fruit has bristly hairs that aid in wind dispersal. When the fruit
comes in contact with water, the pericarp opens rapidly, releasing the
seed, which then sinks [12]. In wet weather the fruits often fall to
the ground in dense mats [39].
Germination and seedling establishment: Common cattail seeds are
capable of germinating immediately after shedding under favorable
conditions, but require moist or wet substrates, warm temperatures, low
oxygen concentrations, and long day-short night exposures for
germination to occur [4,38]. Sifton [38] achieved the highest
germination rates (86-89%) at temperatures from 77 to 86 degrees
Fahrenheit (25-30 C). Because of the relatively high temperature
required for germination, seeds overwinter in northern latitudes, but
not necessarily in southern latitudes [27]. In a southeastern Wisconsin
marsh, hybrid cattail (T. X glauca) seeds germinated from May through
September, with the greatest number of seedlings seen in June and the
fewest in September [3]. Following summer marsh drawdown in
northwestern Minnesota, common cattail seedlings appeared on moist,
vegetation-free areas 10 days after soil exposure [48]. Light,
temperature, and oxygen requirements for germination are best met in
shallow water or on moist mudflats in vegetation-free areas. Within
established common cattail stands, seedlings are practically
nonexistent. This is because existing vegetative cover greatly reduces
light and temperature for germination, and because cattail leaves and
stems may produce allelopathic inhibitors [12,28].
Once established, a single seedling spreads rapidly by rhizomes. In
Montana, a single seed planted in a stock tank on April 1, grew into a
massive network of clones with 98 aerial shoots and 104 lateral buds by
November 1 [47]. Grace and Wetzel [13] reported that 2 years after
germination, common cattail may spread over an area of 624 square feet
(58 sq m).
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Common cattail grows just about anywhere that soil remains wet,
saturated, or flooded most of the growing season [12]. Common habitats
include wet meadows, marshes, fens, pond and lake margins, floating bog
mats, seacoast estuaries, roadside ditches, irrigation canals, oxbow
lakes, and backwater areas of rivers and streams [7,12,17]. It is
tolerant of continuous inundation and seasonal drawdowns but is
generally restricted to areas where the water depth never exceeds about
2.6 feet (80 cm) [5,13]. It grows mostly in fresh water but also occurs
in slightly brackish marshes [12,47]. Along water depth gradients,
common cattail often grows upslope of bulrush or open water but
downslope of common reed (Phragmites australis), reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea), and willow (Salix spp.) [12,17].
When common cattail and narrow-leaved cattail cooccur, they are
frequently segregated by water depth, with common cattail found in
shallow water and narrow-leaved cattail in deep water [13].
Soils: Cattail stands produce enormous quantities of litter.
Established stands tend to grow on soils with high amounts of organic
matter. Common cattail may also grow on fine-textured mineral soils,
but the soils often have organic matter incorporated into at least the
surface horizons [33].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Facultative Seral Species
Common cattail is often a dominant component of early successional
stages in wetlands. It rapidly colonizes exposed wet mineral soils, as
it produces an extremely high number of seeds, which are dispersed by
wind and water. On logged-over black spruce (Picea mariana) lowlands in
Ontario, common cattail quickly invades exposed peat and water-filled
depressions created by logging machinery [6]. It is also an early seral
species occupying the water's edge on floating bog mats [7]. Along
oxbow lakes on the Athabaska River in Alberta, Canada, common cattail
was abundant only on sites showing evidence of recent flooding. On
oxbows with stable water levels, common cattail was replaced by awned
sedge (Carex atherodes) and common rivergrass (Scolichloa festucacea),
with gradual siltation and organic matter buildup [21]. In some
situations where water levels remain constant, common cattail maintains
relatively stable communities [17].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
The general pattern of common cattail phenological development includes
spring rhizome sprouting and rapid leaf production, early to midsummer
flowering, and leaf senescence and new rhizome production in the fall
[12]. Timing of sprouting varies with water depth, with deep water
shoots sprouting before those in shallow water. Spring growth is
usually rapid and sudden, and is almost entirely leaf growth.
Along the Athabaska River in northeastern Alberta, Canada, common
cattail growth began in late May, and stems reached maximum weight by
mid-August. Shoots which began growth in spring showed substantial leaf
senescence by late August [21].
Hybrid cattail (T. X glauca) phenology in southeastern Wisconsin was as
follows [3]:
April - sprout or primary aerial shoot begins growth
May - new shoots elongating and growing above the water level
June - staminate and pistillate spikes formed, carbohydrate levels
in rhizomes at minimum in late June
Winter - plants dormant, maximum levels of stored carbohydrates
Phenology of common cattail near Gainsville, Florida, was as follows [34]:
mid- to late May - flowering
June to early August - fruit ripening
mid-August to mid-Nov. - sporadic fruit dispersal during low humidity
February through May - active growth
Nov., Dec., Jan. - dormancy
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Common cattail rhizomes are buried in the soil and are often under water
where they cannot be harmed by the heat of fire. When aboveground
foliage is consumed by fire, common cattail quickly initiates new
top-growth from these surviving underground regenerative organs.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
The effects of fire on common cattail vary with water depth and soil
moisture. On flooded sites and on sites with exposed but saturated
soils, fire consumes most or all of the aboveground biomass, but
underground rhizomes remain undamaged and plants survive [11,41]. When
soils become dry because of drought or marshland drainage, fires can
burn deep into the organic horizons, consuming the rhizomes and killing
the plant [43].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Common cattail quickly sprouts from surviving rhizomes following fires
that remove the top-growth. If burned when plants are dormant, new
top-growth is initiated in the spring, and annual productivity is not
lowered [40,41]. Even following summer fires, plants quickly initiate
new growth from surviving underground rhizomes and grow until killed by
fall frosts. After an early September fire in Utah, common cattail grew
to 1.3 feet (0.4 m) in height before winter dormancy [41].
Hybrid cattail (T. X glauca) stands in New Brunswick, Canada, were
burned in spring, summer, or fall in both flooded and drained marshes.
Summer burning on drained sites resulted in the greatest reductions in
cover, density, and height 3 years after burning. Three years after
burning on flooded marsh, hybrid cattail increased in cover but showed
little or no change in cover, stem density, or height. Changes in these
characteristics 3 years after burning are presented below [24]:
control spring summer autumn
burned burned burned
cover (%)
drained marsh 56 54 36 48
flooded marsh 41 44 55 46
stem density/m2
drained marsh 15 14 9 12
flooded marsh 10 10 12 10
plant height (cm)
drained marsh 133 126 111 130
flooded marsh 155 165 158 156
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed burning in late fall, winter, or early spring when plant tops
are dry opens up common cattail stands by removing years of accumulated
litter. In northern latitudes, winter burning has advantages in that
fires can be better directed over ice than open water, as the ice allows
for faster movement of men and equipment. Additionally, winter fires
are easier to control because they are of lower intensity than fires
during warmer months [1]. Annual burning is difficult because more than
1 year of litter is needed to carry fire in cattail stands [1,3].
On marshes where water levels can be controlled, drawdown followed by
burning and rapid reflooding kills common cattail if regrowth is kept
completely submerged. Following marsh drawdown and burning in Utah,
common cattail quickly resprouted and covered areas that were reflooded
with up to 8 inches (20 cm) of water. No plants survived, however, on
areas flooded with 8 to 18 inches (20-46 cm) of water [32]. When winter
burning over ice in southwestern Ontario, Ball [1] found that
slow-moving backfires left the shortest cattail stubble which
subsequently needed the least amount of water level increase to submerge
the stalks. Furthermore, snow buildup over ice can protect the stalks
from burning, resulting in tall stubble that is difficult to submerge
the following spring. Thus, when using winter burning in conjunction
with water level manipulation to control cattail, it is best to burn
over ice in early winter before snow accumulation or in early spring
after snow melt.
In Utah, common cattail was controlled with a combination of burning and
cutting. Stands were first cut, then the cut material burned. This
made it easier to flood the cut stems, and allowed a second cutting, if
needed, to be made very close to the ground [32].
In the Southern High Plains region of Texas, winter burning did not
improve common cattail nutritive quality [40].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Typha latifolia | Common Cattail
REFERENCES :
1. Ball, J. P. 1984. Habitat selection and optimal foraging by mallards: a
field experiment. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 44 p. Thesis.
[18071]
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. Beule, John D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern
Wisconsin wetlands. Tech. Bull No. 112. Madison, WI: Department of
Natural Resources. 40 p. [14574]
4. Bonnewell, V.; Koukkari, W. L.; Pratt, D. C. 1983. Light, oxygen, and
temperature requirements for Typha latifolia seed germination. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 61: 1330-1336. [17671]
5. Brotherson, Jack D. 1981. Aquatic and semiaquatic vegetation of Utah
Lake and its bays. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 5: 68-84. [11212]
6. Brumelis, G.; Carleton, T. J. 1989. The vegetation of post-logged black
spruce lowlands in central Canada. II. Understory vegetation. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 26: 321-339. [7864]
7. Conway, Verona M. 1949. The bogs of central Minnesota. Ecological
Monographs. 19(2): 173-206. [16686]
8. 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]
9. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
10. 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]
11. Gorenzel, Warner P.; Ryder, Ronald A.; Braun, Clait E. 1981. American
coot response to habitat change on a Colorado marsh. Southwestern
Naturalist. 26(1): 59-65. [17677]
12. 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. [17673]
13. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1981. Habitat partitioning and
competitive displacement in cattails (Typha): experimental field
studies. American Naturalist. 118(4): 463-474. [17674]
14. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1982. Variations in growth and
reproduction within populations of two rhizomatous plant species: Typha
latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Oecologia. 53: 258-263. [17682]
15. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1982. Niche differentiation between
two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 60: 46-57. [17683]
16. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains.
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Kantrud, Harold A. 1990. Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding
waterfowl in prairie wetlands--a literature review. In: Severson, Kieth
E., tech. coord. Can livestock be used as a tool to enhance wildlife
habitat?: Proceedings, 43rd annual meeting of the Society for Range
Managememt; 1990 February 13; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 93-123. [16001]
20. 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]
21. Lieffers, V. J. 1983. Growth of Typha latifolia in boreal forest
habitats, as measured by double sampling. Aquatic Botany. 15: 335-348.
[17670]
22. Linde, Arlyn F.; Janisch, Thomas; Smith, Dale. 1976. Cattail - the
significance of its growth, phenology and carbohydrate storage to its
control and management. Tech. Bull. No. 94. Madison, WI: Department of
Natural Resources. 27 p. [17678]
23. 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]
24. Mallik, A. U.; Wein, Ross W. 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community
to draining, flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany.
64: 2136-2143. [17672]
25. 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]
26. Martin, Alexander C.; Zim, Herbert S.; Nelson, Arnold L. 1951. American
wildlife and plants. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 500 p.
[4021]
27. McNaughton, S. J. 1966. Ecotype function in the Typha community-type.
Ecological Monographs. 36(4): 297-325. [17676]
28. McNaughton, S. J. 1968. Autotoxic feedback in relation to germination
and seedling growth in Typha latifolia. Ecology. 49(2): 367-369.
[17684]
29. Milne, Robert C.; Quay, Thomas L. 1967. The foods and feeding habits of
the nutria on Hatteras Island, North Carolina. Proceedings, Annual
Conference of Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissions. 20:
112-123. [15302]
30. Morton, Julia F. 1975. Cattails (Typha spp.) - Weed problem or potential
crop?. Economic Botany. 29: 7-29. [17675]
31. Murkin, Henry R.; Kaminski, Richard M.; Titman, Rodger D. 1982.
Responses by dabbling ducks and aquatic invertebrates to an
experimentally manipulated cattail marsh. Canadian Journal of Zoology.
60: 2324-2332. [17669]
32. Nelson, Noland F.; Dietz, Reuben H. 1966. Cattail control methods in
Utah. Publication No. 66-2. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State Department of
Fish and Game. 66 p. [17809]
33. Padgett, Wayne G.; Youngblood, Andrew P.; Winward, Alma H. 1989.
Riparian community type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho.
R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Region. 191 p. [11360]
34. Patton, Janet Easterday; Judd, Walter S. 1988. A phenological study of
20 vascular plant species occurring on the Paynes Prairie Basin, Alachua
County, Florida. Castanea. 53(2): 149-163. [15081]
35. Penfound, W. T.; Hathaway, Edward S. 1938. Plant communities in the
marshlands of southeastern Louisiana. Ecological Monographs. 8(1): 3-56.
[15089]
36. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
37. Rivard, Paul G.; Woodard, Paul M. 1989. Light, ash, and pH effects on
the germination and seedling growth of Typha latifolia (cattail).
Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 2783-2787. [14769]
38. Sifton, H. B. 1959. The germination of light-sensitive seeds of Typha
latifolia L. Canadian Journal of Botany. 37: 719-739. [17668]
39. Smith, S. Galen. 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North
American typha (Typhaceae). American Midland Naturalist. 78(2): 257-287.
[17667]
40. Smith, Loren M. 1989. Effects of grazing and burning on nutritive
quality of cattail in Playas. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 27:
51-53. [11149]
41. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A. 1985. Comparisons of prescribed burning
and cutting of Utah marsh plants. Great Basin Naturalist. 45: 462-466.
[10496]
42. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A. 1985. Fire and herbivory in a Great
Salt Lake marsh. Ecology. 66(1): 259-265. [7619]
43. Smith, Robert H. 1942. Management of salt marshes on the Atlantic Coast
of the United States. Transactions, 7th North American Wildlife
Conference. 7: 272-277. [14505]
44. 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]
45. 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]
46. Williams, Cecil S.; Marshall, Wm. H. 1938. Duck nesting studies, Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah, 1937. Journal of Wildlife Management.
2(2): 29-52. [11191]
47. Yeo, R. R. 1964. Life history of common cattail. Weeds. 12: 284-288.
[17666]
48. Harris, Stanley W.; Marshall, William H. 1963. Ecology of water-level
manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology. 44(2): 331-343. [17808]
49. Kurmis, Vilis; Webb, Sara L.; Merriam, Lawrence C., Jr. 1986. Plant
communities of Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, U.S.A. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 64: 531-540. [16088]
50. 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: Typha latifolia
| Common Cattail
|
 |
