Phalaris arundinacea - L.
Reed Canarygrass
Other Common Names: reed canarygrass
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Phalaris arundinacea L. (TSN 41335)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.159238
Element Code: PMPOA4R030
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Grass Family
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Cyperales Poaceae Phalaris
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
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.
Concept Reference Code: B94KAR01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Phalaris arundinacea
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 13May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 18Jun1984
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread in North America and Eurasia; very abundant in parts of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (02Jun2011)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (SNR), Alaska (S3), Arizona (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (SNA), Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNR), Idaho (SNR), Illinois (S3S4), Indiana (SNA), Iowa (S5), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S5?), Maine (SNR), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNA), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SNA), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S4), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (SNR), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (SNR), Rhode Island (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (SNR), Utah (SNR), Vermont (SNR), Virginia (S5), Washington (SNR), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (SNR), Wyoming (S3S4)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (SNR), Northwest Territories (SNR), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (SNA), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S4S5), Yukon Territory (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Estimate is based on wide range of the species and its extreme abundance/frequency in parts of that range.

Population Size Comments: Widespread in North America, Eurasia.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
NOTE: The distribution shown may be incomplete, particularly for some rapidly spreading exotic species.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AKnative and exotic, AL, AR, AZ, CA, COexotic, CT, DC, DEexotic, IA, ID, IL, INexotic, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MNexotic, MO, MTexotic, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BCexotic, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ONnative and exotic, PEexotic, QC, SK, YTnative and exotic

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AK Yukon-Koyukuk (CA) (02290)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
19 Birch-Beaver Creeks (19040402)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Habitat Comments: Wet meadows along creeks, stream banks, margins of springs.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank)
Help
Disclaimer: While I-Rank information is available over NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe is not actively developing or maintaining these data. Species with I-RANKs do not represent a random sample of species exotic in the United States; available assessments may be biased toward those species with higher-than-average impact.

I-Rank: High
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: This species can form dense, persistent, monotypic stands of creeping rhizomes in a thick sod layer in wetlands, moist meadows and riparian areas. In a study on the St. Lawrence River, this species (as well as a few other aquatic wetland invasive plant species) was found to expand aggressively to a point of almost monospecific dominance during periods of low water levels. Populations can dominate wetlands outcompeting and eliminating native species, often in undisturbed areas on nature preserves. Although distributed in nearly every U.S. state it is particularly invasive in the northeast where it has spread over the last 200 years and more recently, in the west. Almost any moist, fertile habitat is suitable including wetlands and riparian areas. A combination of management strategies works best although management is somewhat difficult but can be rapid if invasions are caught in time. Unfortunately, control often has deleterious impacts on native species.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: High/Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 26Jun2006
Evaluator: J. Cordeiro
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Reed canarygrass is the only member of the genus Phalaris that is circumboreal, and it may be the precursor to all New World taxa of the genus (Anderson, 1961 cited in Lyons, 1998). Clearly native to Europe, some authors view it as native to Asia and North America as well but the present day range extends throughout the Old and New Worlds, where it is found primarily in northern latitudes (Lyons, 1998).

Download "An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity". (PDF, 1.03MB)
Provide feedback on the information presented in this assessment

Screening Questions

S-1. Established outside cultivation as a non-native? YES
Comments: There is some debate as to whether Phalaris arundinacea is native to North America (Merigliano and Lesica, 1998) as collections from the inland Pacific Northwest predate settlement of the area by Europeans. Modern Phalaris populations in this region may be a mixture of cultivars and "native" material. It is widely regarded as non-native in more southern latitutes. The invasive character of some populations may be the result of agronomic breeding for vigorous growth and drought tolerance. It is generally thought that invasive populations of reed canarygrass, however, are descendents of non-native cultivars or ecotypes (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987; Hutchinson, 1992) or the vigorous result of crosses between cultivated varieties and native strains (Barnes, 1999; Barrett, 1983; Gilford et al., 2002; Merigliano and Lesica, 1998) with native and non-native strains coexisting in the U.S. since the 1800s. Several subspecies and cultivars have been planted throughout the United States since the 1800s for forage and erosion control (Czarapata, 2005).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: There is some debate as to whether Phalaris arundinacea is native to North America (Merigliano and Lesica, 1998) as collections from the inland Pacific Northwest predate settlement of the area by Europeans. Modern Phalaris populations in this region may be a mixture of cultivars and "native" material. It is widely regarded as non-native in more southern latitutes. It is considered an aggressive, rhixomatous, colony-forming perennial common in wet areas of the U.S. (Uva et al., 1997).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Moderate significance
Comments: Reed canarygrass promotes silt deposition and consequent constriction of waterways (Hodgson, 1968).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High significance
Comments: Reed canarygrass can form dense, persistent, monotypic stands of creeping rhizomes in a thick sod layer (over 0.5 meters thick) in wetlands, moist meadows and riparian areas (Czarapata, 2005; Lyons, 1998; Tu et al., 2004; Randall and Marinelli, 1996). In a study on the St. Lawrence River, this species (as well as a few other aquatic wetland invasive plant species) was found to expand aggressively to a point of almost monospecific dominance during periods of low water levels (be they natural or artificial) as the plants monopolize light and space better than less aggressive species (Hudon, 2004).

3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition:High significance
Comments: Reed canarygrass can form dense, persistent, monotypic stands in wetlands, moist meadows and riparian areas that exclude and displace desirable native plants and animals (Lyons, 1998; Tu et al., 2004; Randall and Marinelli, 1996). It usually forms monotypic stands and is highly competitive with timothy (Phleum pratense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and redtop (Agrostis alba), often invading these grasslands to become the dominant cover type (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987). Barnes (1999) documented formerly abundant herbs and grasses in western Wisconsin displaced following reed canarygrass invasion. A few native plants may be survive within a thick infestation (Eleocharis palustris, Typha latifolia, Veronica scutellata, Carex aperta), but wetlands without Phalaris arundinacea tend to have a much higher diversity of native species (Tu et al., 2004). Similarly, Green and Galatowitsch (2002) found that if P. arundinacea is present during restoration of sedge meadow communities, the restored community will not achieve levels of abundance that are possible when it is not present.

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:High significance
Comments: Stewards of the Nature Conservancy indicated reed canarygrass may threaten populations of many species including Zygadenus glaucus (northeast, central Ohio Herrick Fen, beck Fen, Brownslake Bog), Carex lyngbuei, Scirpus acutus, Equisetum fluviatile (Blind Slough Preserve, Oregon) (Lyons, 1998). A few native plants may be survive within a thick infestation (Eleocharis palustris, Typha latifolia, Veronica scutellata, Carex aperta), but wetlands without Phalaris arundinacea tend to have a much higher diversity of native species (Tu et al., 2004). Miller and Zedler (2003) determined that reed canarygrass comes to dominate wetlands at the expense of native Spartina due to its high ratio of total shoot length: biomass and its adaptable morphology.

5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:High significance
Comments: On TNC's Swan River Oxbow Preserve in Montana, reed canarygrass poses a threat to the federally endangered annual aquatic plant Howellia aquatilis causing an extensive decrease in patch size (Lesica, 1997). Akerson and Gounaris (2000) list this species as a serious threat as an invasive and one of the most difficult plants to control in Colonial National Park, Yorktown, Virginia.

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: Phalaris arundinacea is distributed in every U.S. state except Texas, Hawaii, and the extreme southeastern states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina) (USDA, 2006). Crow and Hellquist (2000b) list distribution in North America as Newfoundland wet to Manitoba, southwest to Northwest Territories and Alaska, south to Virginia, west to North Carolina, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and northeast California.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Phalaris arundinacea is particularly abundant in the west and northeast (Lyons, 1998). It is listed as an invasive (though not banned) species in Connecticut and a Class C noxious weed in Washington (USDA, 2006). Of late, it has become particularly invasive in western states although has been well established in the northeast as an invasive for almost 200 years (Czarapata, 2005). It grows successfully in northern latitudes and can be invasive in wet habitats (Lyons, 1998). There is some debate as to whether Phalaris arundinacea is native to North America (Merigliano and Lesica, 1998) as collections from the inland Pacific Northwest predate settlement of the area by Europeans. Modern Phalaris populations in this region may be a mixture of cultivars and "native" material. It is widely regarded as non-native in more southern latitutes. The invasive character of some populations may be the result of agronomic breeding for vigorous growth and drought tolerance.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: Phalaris arundinacea is distributed in every U.S. state except Texas, Hawaii, and the extreme southeastern states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina) (USDA, 1999). It is conservatively estimated that well over half of the U.S. ecoregions have been invaded by the either invasive strains of this species or native x invasive crosses (Cordeiro, pers. obs. March 2006 based on TNC, 2001).

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:High significance
Comments: Almost any moist, fertile habitat is suitable for this species as it invades and dominates wetland and riparian areas but is valued as a forage grass and for revegetating denuded ditchbanks (Lyons, 1998; Crow and Hellquist, 2000b). This includes wet meadows, wetlands, marshes, fens, old fields, floodplains, wet prairies, roadsides, ditchbanks, streambanks, lake shores, and shore swales (Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks, 2001; Snyder, 1992). The species has a high tolerance for varying nutrient and oxygen levels and can live in fluctuating and submerged water successfully (Brix and Sorrell, 1996; Figiel et al., 1995; Green and Galatowitsch, 2002; Kao et al., 2003).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Of late, Phalaris arundinacea has become particularly invasive in western states although has been well established in the northeast as an invasive for almost 200 years (Czarapata, 2005). It has been spreading considerably throughout the United States (and the world) for the last 200 years and has occupied many habitats (Lyons, 1998).

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: Reed canarygrass has a long agronomic history in the U.S. with forage cultivation occurring as early as the 1830s in New England and continuing actively today (Lyons, 1998). Most of its potential range is likely occupied.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Seeds inherently have no adaptation for long-distance dispersal. Both rhizome fragments and seeds may are dispersed via flowing water, resulting in rapid colonization of unvegetated sediment deposits. Because reed canarygrass has been planted widely for forage and erosion control, potential to spread by human activity is high.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Medium/Low significance
Comments: A study by Barnes (1999) on a small river island in western Wisconsin showed rapid expansion over a 15 year period from a single small population in 1981 to becoming the dominant plant at elevations of <1 m above the normal high water level in 1996. Reed canarygrass is considered an undesirable invader in oak savannahs of south-central Wisconsin (Henderson, 1990). Akerson and Gounaris (2000) list this species as a serious threat as an invasive and one of the most difficult plants to control in Colonial National Park, Yorktown, Virginia.

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: This species is listed as an "invasive plant of major concern" in Czarapata (2005). Reed canarygrass invasion is promoted by disturbances such as ditching of wetlands, stream channelization, deforestation of swamp forests, sedimentation, overgrazing, and intentional planting (Lyons, 1998; Barnes, 1999), but natural disturbances such as scouring floods and low water conditions also promote invasion. Miller and Zedler (2003) suggested P. arundinacea will grow in balance with native wetland vegetation without becoming dominant until there is a nutrient input from anthropogenic sources that shifts that balance and allows it to dominate the natives. They further noted it has a high ratio of total shoot length: biomass and an adaptable morphology. Raven (1986) reported P. arundinacea proliferated along the unidisturbed portion of riverbank (below the excavated portion) on the River Roding, Essex, United Kingdom, following excavation of flood berms to create a two-stage channel in 1980-82. The excavation apparently caused favorable habitat for this species. Reinhardt and Galatowitsch (2004) found P. arundinacea grew rapidly compared to other wetland species, producing 132 g/ plant of aboveground biomass and 333 g/ plant of below ground biomass in just two growing seasons. Also, root to shoot ratios revealed that P. arundinacea produced proportionally more aboveground biomass during the first 2 months of establishment and proportionally more belowground biomass for the rest of their study. This morphologic plasticity may explain why P. arundinacea is so successful at first preempting establishment of other species and then spreading rapidly.

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Low significance
Comments: It appears this species has maximized all potential habitats in the United States such that is similarly considered a widespread invader circumboreal in distribution, and it may be the precursor to all New World taxa of the genus (Anderson, 1961 cited in Lyons, 1998). No occupied habitats outside the U.S. are not yet colonized within the U.S.

16. Reproductive Characteristics:High significance
Comments: Reed canarygrass spreads within sites by creeping rhizomes and forms dense and impenetrable mats of vegetation and new sites are colonized by seeds (Lyons, 1998; Snyder, 1992). There are two periods of growth, one prior to seed maturation and one after (Lyons, 1998). Seeds germinate immediately after ripening with no known dormancy requirements (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987). Growth occurs vegetatively by rhizomes (most often) and sexually by seeds (less common) with a transition from the former to the latter occurring in the shoot tips in early to mid-April with inflorescence development continuing into May. Most plants and recurring populations are likely from rhizomes (Czarapata, 2005; Tu et al., 2004; Uva et al., 1997). Estimated total net productivity was found to be 2028 g/sq. m/year, higher than other species such as Typha and Scirpus (Klopatek and Stearns, 1978). Reinhardt and Galatowitsch (2004) found P. arundinacea grew rapidly compared to other wetland species, producing 132 g/ plant of aboveground biomass and 333 g/ plant of below ground biomass in just two growing seasons. Also, root to shoot ratios revealed that P. arundinacea produced proportionally more aboveground biomass during the first 2 months of establishment and proportionally more belowground biomass for the rest of their study. Nodes can spread at rhizomes. Seed banking can occur in soil for years (Leck, 1996) with an extensive seedbank (Czarapata, 2005) but survival in water is limited to 1-2 years only.

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: High/Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:High/Moderate significance
Comments: A combination of management strategies over several years will yueidl the best results (Lyons, 1998). Control is generally difficult due to the rhizomatous nature of the species and may require herbicide treatment for several years (Lyons, 1998; chemical treatment information provided) and because selective control is extremely difficult (Czarapata, 2005), but depending on available time and resources, even highly infested arreas can be restored to more desirable vegetation (Tu et al., 2004; summarizes treatment options). Removal by hand-pulling is practical only for small stands and requires a large time commitment (e.g. > 5 years) (Hutchinson, 1992). Grazing and cutting may be effective controls (again, long-term) but only in fields and croplands. Non-selective herbicides like glyphosate are most effective (Lyons, 1998; Randall and Marinelli, 1996) for small infestations, although commercial glyphosate-based herbicides are often enhanced by surfactants to help the chemical cling to plant leaves which are themselves potentially more harful thean the glyphosate itself (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987). Lowering of water levels followed by restoration of water levles may control this species because the seeds are generally short-lived (1 or 2 years max.) when inundated (Lyons, 1998). Fire is effective in highly productive wetlands but should only be used for sites with a healthy seed bank of fire-adapted native spedcies that will readily colonize the area after a burn (Hutchinson, 1992). Generally, however, fire is only effective root-burn occurs, and this is unlikely because water or mud often covers the rhizomes (Marks et al., 1994; Snyder, 1992). Currently, there are no biological control methods (Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks, 2001). Because most control methods have negative impacts on native wetlands, Johnson (2005) investigated alternative control methods for small, incidental invasions (used AFTER mowing)` and found solarization with black plastic (cost $40/ 2000 sq. ft.; equals $2150/ha) was most effective (100% reduction of stems) and woodchip mulch somewhat effective (85% stem reduction but later regrowth through the mulch leading to reclamation), both with minimal impact on native wetlands and minimum time and cost.

Recent control efforts were summarized in Reinhardt and Galatowitsch (2004): Herbicide applications significantly reduced P. arundinacea biomass, and the effectiveness of the herbicide hinged on the timing of the herbicide application. When measured in the growing season after treatment, the mid-May herbicide application reduced P. arundinacea to 25% of control levels, but both late August and late September herbicide applications were significantly more effective, and reduced P. arundinacea to 10% of control levels. Further, spring burn does not reduce P. arundinacea biomass in the long term, nor does it enhance the effectiveness of subsequent herbicide applications.


18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium/Low significance
Comments: A combination of management strategies over several years will yueidl the best results (Lyons, 1998). Control is difficult due to the rhizomatous nature of the species and may require herbicide treatment for several years (Lyons, 1998) and because selective control is very difficult (Czarapata, 2005). It can be controlled with glyphosate, followed by covering treated areas with black plastic. This method is successful if done for 3 years, and then the treated area seeded with desirable species. Selective hand-pulling is also successful but must be carried out two to three times a year for 5 years (Henderson, 1990). Other chemicals, such as Dalapon and Amitrol, are effective in fall or early winter (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987). Hodgson (1968) found consecutive, yearly chemical treatments were required to control reed canarygrass. A mixed strategy (e.g. disking mowing, early and late treatments with glyphosate herbicide, late glyphosate treatment alone, and ealry glyphosate treatment plus disking) seems most effective providing effective control in 1-2 years in some cases (Paveglio and Kilbride, 1996). Removal by hand-pulling is practical only for small stands and requires a large time commitment (e.g. > 5 years) (Hutchinson, 1992). Fire is effective in highly productive wetlands but should only be used for sites with a healthy seed bank of fire-adapted native spedcies that will readily colonize the area after a burn and requires a 2-3 year burn rotation cycle for up to 6 years (Hutchinson, 1992). Because most control methods have negative impacts on native wetlands, Johnson (2005) investigated alternative control methods for small, incidental invasions (used AFTER mowing)` and found solarization with black plastic (cost $40/ 2000 sq. ft.; equals 2150/ha) was most effective (100% reduction of stems) and woodchip mulch somewhat effective (85% stem reduction but later regrowth through the mulch leading to reclamation), both with minimal impact on native wetlands and minimum time and cost.

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:High significance
Comments: Few herbicides may be used in wetlands or near running water, where reed canarygrass is usually most troublesome; plus selective control in these areas is nearly impossible (Czarapata, 2005). In such cases, non-selective herbicides like glyphosate are most effective (Lyons, 1998; Czarapata, 2005), although commercial glyphosate-based herbicides are often enhanced by surfactants to help the chemical cling to plant leaves which are themselves potentially more harful than the glyphosate itself (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987) so wick application (more selective) works best. However, many sources believe that the impact of common control techniques are so severe that removal of the species from wetlands with those techniques would result in overall net loss to the wetland (Johnson, 2005). Fire is effective in highly productive wetlands but should only be used for sites with a healthy seed bank of fire-adapted native spedcies that will readily colonize the area after a burn (Hutchinson, 1992). Because most control methods have negative impacts on native wetlands, Johnson (2005) investigated alternative control methods for small, incidental invasions (used AFTER mowing) and found solarization with black plastic was most effective (100% reduction of stems) and woodchip mulch somewhat effective (85% stem reduction but later regrowth through the mulch leading to reclamation), both with minimal impact on native wetlands. Currently, there are no biological control methods (Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks, 2001). When reed canarygrass is eliminated, there may be a danger of soil erosion if other species fail to cover the area quickly.

Most recently from control efforts outlined in Reinhardt and Galatowitsch (2004): In the context of a newly restored wetland, results indicated that a high density of native seeds suppressed P. arundinacea growth, and the effect was more pronounced at high seed densities of P. arundinacea (>100 seeds/ sq. m). However, higher densities of native seeding did not suppress recruitment from seed, even when P. arundinacea was present at 10 seeds/ sq. m and native species were present at 15,000 seeds/ sq. m. Although native species in high propagule density can suppress early growth of P. arundinacea, they do not suppress recruitment of P. arundinacea individuals from seed.


20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance/Insignificant
Comments: It appears most to all areas are easily accessible, as for most aquatic plants outside unusual habitats such as caves or high elevation streams or ponds. Because reed canarygrass has been planted widely for forage and erosion control, a few areas may not be accessible, particularly on private lands.

Other Considerations: It is generally thought that invasive populations of reed canarygrass, however, are descendents of non-native cultivars or ecotypes (Apfelbaum and Sams, 1987; Czarapata, 2005; Hutchinson, 1992) or the vigorous result of crosses between cultivated varieties and native strains (Barnes, 1999; Barrett, 1983; Gilford et al., 2002; Merigliano and Lesica, 1998) with native and non-native strains coexisting in the U.S. since the 1800s. Therefore, for the purposes of this invasiveness ranking assessment only, all U.S. populations of reed canarygrass will be treated as invasive.
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 15Nov1990
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Williams, C.L.

Botanical data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs), The North Carolina Botanical Garden, and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Akerson, J. and K. Gounaris. 2000. Strategic plan for managing alien invasive vegetation: Colonial National Historic Park, Yorktown, Virginia. Report submitted to Colonial Natioanl Historic Park, National Park Service, Yorktown, Virginia, March 2000. 16 pp. + app.

  • Anderson, D.E. 1961. Taxonomy and distribution of the genus Phalaris. Iowa State Journal of Science 36(1):1-96.

  • Apfelbaum, S.I. and C.E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of Reed Canary Grass. Natural Areas Journal 7(2):69-74.

  • Apfelbaum, S.I. and C.E. Sams. 1987. Ecology and control of reed canary grass. Natural Areas Journal, 7(2): 69-74.

  • Barnes, W.J. 1999. The rapid growth of a population of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) and its impact on some riverbottom herbs. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 126(2): 133-138.

  • Barrett, S.C.H. 1983. Crop mimicry in weeds. Economic Botany, 37: 255-282.

  • Brix, H. and B.K. Sorrell. 1996. Oxygen stress in wetland plants: comparison of de-oxygenated and reducing root environments. Functional Ecology, 10: 521-526.

  • Catling, P.M., G. Mitrow, and L. Vasseur. 2014. Major Invasive Alien Plants of Natural Habitats in Canada. 8. Reed Canarygrass, phalaris roseau: Phalaris arundinacea L. Canadian Botanical Association Bulletin 47(1): 25-34.

  • Crow, G.E. and C.B. Hellquist. 2000. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Northeastern North America. A Revised and Enlarged Edition of Norman C. Fassett's A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Vol. 2, Angiosperms; Monocotyledons. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 448 pp.

  • Czarapata, E.J. 2005. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. An Illustrated Guide to Their Identification and Control. The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin. 215 pp.

  • Dore, W.G. and J. McNeill. 1980. Grasses of Ontario. Monograph 26, Agriculture Canada, Research Branch, Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. 566 pp.

  • Figiel, C.R., Jr., B. Collins, and G. Wein. 1995. Variation in survival and biomass of two wetland grasses at different nutrient and water levels over a six week period. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 122(1): 24-29.

  • Gilford, A., J.-B. Ferdy, and J. Molofsky. 2002. Genetic composition and morphological variation among populations of the invasive grass, Phalaris arundinacea. Canadian Journal of Botany, 80: 779-785.

  • Green, E.K., and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2002. Effects of Phalaris arundinacea and Nitrate-N addition on the establishment of wetland plant communities. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(1): 134-144.

  • Henderson, R.A. 1990. Controlling reed canary grass in a degraded oak savanna. Restoration & Management Notes, 8(2): 123-124.

  • Hodgson, J.M. 1968. Chemical control of reed canarygrass on irrigation canals. Weeds, 16: 465-468.

  • Hudon, C. 2004. Shift in wetland composition and biomass following low-level episodes in the St. Lawrence River: looking into the future. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61: 603-617.

  • Hutchison, M. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Natural Areas Journal, 12(3): 159.

  • Johnson, M.L. 2005. Investigating alternatives for control of Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) in urban wetlands. Master's Thesis, Portland State University, January 4, 2005. 25 pp.

  • Kao, J.T., J.E. Titus, and W.-X. Zhu. 2003. Differential nitrogen and phosphorus retention by five wetland plant species. Wetlands, 23(4): 979-987.

  • 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.

  • Klopatek, J.M. and F.W. Stearns. 1978. Primary productivity of emergent macrophytes in a Wisconsin freshwater marsh ecosystem. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(2): 320-332.

  • Leck, M.A. 1996. Germination of macrophytes from a Delaware River tidal freshwater wetland. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 123: 48-67.

  • Lesica, P. 1997. Spread of Phalaris arundinacea adversely impacts the endangered plant Howellia aquatilis. Great Basin Naturalist, 57(4): 366-368.

  • Lyons, K.E. 1998. Element stewardship abstract for Phalaris arundinacea L. reed canarygrass. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. unpaginated.

  • Marks, M., B. Lapin, and J. Randall. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal, 14(4): 285-294.

  • Meades, S.J. & Hay, S.G; Brouillet, L. 2000. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and Labrador. Memorial University Botanical Gardens, St John's NF. 237pp.

  • Merigliano, M.F. and P. Lesica. 1998. The native status of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in the inland Northwest, U.S.A. Natural Areas Journal, 18: 223-230.

  • Miller, R. and J.B. Zedler. 2003. Responses of native and invasive wetland plants to hydroperiod and water depth. Plant Ecology, 167: 57-69.

  • Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks. 2001. Invasive Plants of Ohio: Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea. Fact Sheet 6. Available ONLINE: http://dnr.ohio.gov/dnap/invasive/default.htm.

  • Paveglio, F.L. and K.M. Kilbride. 1996. Integrated management techniques show promise for control for reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) in seasonal wetlands (Washington). Restoration and Management Notes, 14(1): 79-80.

  • Randall, J.M. and J. Marinelli (eds.) 1996. Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic Garden: New York. 111 pp.

  • Raven, P.J. 1986. Changes in waterside vegetation following two-stage channel construction on a small rural clay river. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 23(3): 989-1000.

  • Reinhardt, C. and S.M. Galatowitsch. 2004. Best management practices for the invasive Phalaris arundinacea L. (reed canary grass) in wetland restorations. Final Report to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul Minnesota, May 2004. 110 pp.

  • Snyder, S.A. 1992. Phalaris arundinacea. In USDA 1992 Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 15 June 2006.

  • The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Map: TNC Ecoregions of the United States. Modification of Bailey Ecoregions. Online . Accessed May 2003.

  • Tu, M., J. Soll, and B. Lipinski. 2004. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Control & management in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Field Office. 12 pp.

  • USDA, NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70874-4490 USA. Available online: http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: March 2006.

  • Uva, R.H., J.C. Neal, and J.M. DiTomaso. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York. 397 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of November 2016.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2017 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.