Typha angustifolia - L.
Narrowleaf Cattail
Other English Common Names: Narrow-leaved Cattail
Other Common Names: narrowleaf cattail
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Typha angustifolia L. (TSN 42325)
French Common Names: quenouille à feuilles étroites
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.160663
Element Code: PMTYP01020
Informal Taxonomy: Plants, Vascular - Flowering Plants - Other flowering plants
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Plantae Anthophyta Monocotyledoneae Typhales Typhaceae Typha
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: Typha angustifolia
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 05Aug2015
Global Status Last Changed: 06Sep1984
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (05Aug2015)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SNR), Arizona (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (SNR), Connecticut (SNR), Delaware (SNA), District of Columbia (SNR), Florida (SNR), Georgia (SNA), Idaho (SNR), Illinois (S4), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (S5), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (SNR), Louisiana (SNR), Maine (SNR), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SNA), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SU), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S3?), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (SNR), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (SNR), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (SNR), Texas (SNR), Vermont (SNR), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (SNR), Wyoming (S2)
Canada British Columbia (SNA), Manitoba (S4), New Brunswick (S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (SNA), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (SNA)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent Comments: Typha angustifolia is widely distributed in the eastern and northern United States.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: Typha angustifolia is widely distributed in the eastern and northern United States.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
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 AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DEexotic, FL, GAexotic, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MIexotic, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada BCexotic, MB, NB, NS, ONexotic, PE, QC, SKexotic

Range Map
No map available.

Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: The cattail genus (Typha spp.) is an erect, perennial freshwater aquatic herb.
Technical Description: The cattail genus can grow 3 or more meters in height. The linear cattail leaves are thick, ribbon-like structures which have a spongy cross-section exhibiting air channels. The subterranean stem arises from thick creeping rhizomes. North American cattails have minute, brown colored male flowers (staminate) thickly clustered on a club-like spadix. The lower portion of the spadix bares the female flowers (pistillate). There are three species and several hybrids in the cattail genus which occur in North America (Smith 1961, 1962, 1967).

Cattail fruits differ among the two major species. T. angustifolia fruits are about 5-8 mm long with hairs arising above the middle. T. latifolia fruits are about 1 cm long with hairs arising near the base (Agricultural Rea. Service 1971).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cattail plants produce a dense rhizome mat and the clustered leaves produce a thick litter layer. Dense cattail growth and litter may reduce the opportunity for other plants to establish or survive (Wesson and Waring 1969).

Known Pests: ARZAMA OPBLIQUA, NONAGRIA OBLONGA, APHIDS AND COLANDRA PERTINAUX
Ecology Comments: The structure of cattail stands as it is, with upright leaves, high leaf area, balanced horizontal and vertical distribution of leaf area and shifts in leaf angle are all factors which permit monoculture success. An open, generously sunny habitat and abundant moisture can provide the setting for maximum cattail production.

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

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

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

Estuarine Habitat(s): Herbaceous wetland
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, HERBACEOUS WETLAND
Habitat Comments: Cattails have a cosmopolitan distribution and a wide ecological amplitude. Typha can be found in wetlands, sedge meadows, along slow moving streams, river banks, and lake shores. The plant is found in areas of widely fluctuating water levels such as roadside ditches, reservoirs and other disturbed wet soil areas. Cattails commonly invade the pelagic zones of bogs (Gustafson 1976). Typical associates include Phragmites australiis, Lythrum salicaria, Spartina sp., Acorus calamus, Scirpus sp., and Sagittaria latifolia.

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

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

Cattails can grow on a wide gradient of substrate types. Wet pure sand, peat, clay and loamy soils have been documented under cattail stands. World wide distribution of cattails is summarized by Morton (1975).

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/Medium
Rounded I-Rank: High
I-Rank Reasons Summary: Typha angustifolia can form dense, nearly single-species communities in shallow, freshwater marshes and ponds and boggy soil. It produces a dense rhizome mat and thick litter layer, which reduces opportunities for other plants to establish. Colony growth spurts can result in the closing of formerly open water. Hybridizes with the native Typha latifolia to form Typha x glauca over much of its invaded range; hybrids are especially common in the midwest and northeast. Occurs throughout most of the U.S., with the exception of the deep southeast and a few intermountain states. Control by fire and physical removal in conjunction with flooding is most appropriate; chemical control also can have limited success. Time commitment for management is generally high, and the draining, burning, and/or flooding techniques typically employed can have significant impacts on native communities. Note that although some sources consider this species native to at least a portion of the United States, research and rank calculation were performed following Kartesz (1999), who considers the species to be exotic throughout the U.S.
Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium
Subrank II - Current Distribution/Abundance: High
Subrank III - Trend in Distribution/Abundance: Medium/Low
Subrank IV - Management Difficulty: Medium
I-Rank Review Date: 29Mar2006
Evaluator: Cordeiro, J. and K. Gravuer
Native anywhere in the U.S?
Native Range: Eurasia

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: This species is a non-native established outside cultivation (Kartesz 1999).

S-2. Present in conservation areas or other native species habitat? Yes
Comments: Invades coastal salt marshes and inland in nutrient-rich fresh waters including damp shores, marshes, swamps, marshy river margins, and roadside ditches (Crow and Hellquist, 2000).

Subrank I - Ecological Impact: High/Medium

1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-wide Parameters:Moderate significance
Comments: The effect of a growth spurt is closing open water (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). This species, particularly when hybridized, forms dense, nearly single species communities in shallow, freshwater marshes and ponds and boggy soil (USDA, 2006).

2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure:High/Low significance
Comments: Cattail plants produce a dense rhizome mat and the clustered leaves produce a thick litter layer. Dense cattail growth and litter may reduce the opportunity for other plants to establish or survive (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). In addition, colony growth spurts can result in the closing of formerly open water (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). This species, particularly when hybridized, forms dense, nearly single species communities in shallow, freshwater marshes and ponds and boggy soil (USDA, 2006). 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/Moderate significance
Comments: The effect of a growth spurt is closing open water, eliminating habitat and species diversity, and reducing the opportunity for other plants to become established and survive. Shading is a significant effect on other plants (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). This species, particularly when hybridized, forms dense, nearly single species communities in shallow, freshwater marshes and ponds and boggy soil (USDA, 2006).

4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species:Moderate significance
Comments: Hybridizes with the native Typha latifolia to form Typha x glauca over much of its invaded range (Kartesz, 1999). Hybrids between Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia (= Typha x glauca) are common and might be expected where the parents, especially the invasive T. angustifolia, are locally common (Crow and Hellquist, 2000b). Particularly, strands of the hybrid are especially common in the midwest and northeast.

As summarized in Motivans and Apfelbaum (1987):
Typha plants are mined by caterpillars of the moths Arzama opbliqua and Nonagria oblonga (Klots, 1966). Aphids and Colandra pertinaux (the snout beetle) also feed on Typha leaves and stems. The stems may have many species of pupa living within them (Klots 1966). The cattail rhizomes provide food to mammals such as the muskrat. The grazing of muskrats may greatly influence cattail communities. A cycling population of muskrats may reach such a density so as to totally set back a cattail stand for the season. These "eat outs" are important to maintain open water in a balanced system. Muskrats utilize leaves and stems for houses and eat the rhizomes (Zimmerman pers. comm.). Cattail fruits provide nesting material for terrestrial birds and dry stems may be used by aquatic birds.

In addition, it is thought to be allelopathic, producing chemicals which discourage growth of other plant species (Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks, 2001). Panno et al. (1999) reported an increase in Typha angustifolia and a decrease in Scirpus acutus coincident with plumes of sodium and chloride.


5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened:Medium/Low significance

Subrank II. Current Distribution and Abundance: High

6. Current Range Size in Nation:High significance
Comments: This introduced species ranges from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia west to Quebec, Ontario, southern Saskatchewan, southern Montana, Wyoming and southeastern Oregon; and south to Florida, Georgia, Missouri, southern Texas; also in California and parts of Mexico. It was believed to have been introduced in dry ballast in ships from Europe into the Atlantic seaboard (Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks, 2001; Stuckey and Salamon, 1987) and was first recorded in the 1820s in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and other east coast localities (Miklovic, 2000). Hybrids between Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia (= Typha x glauca) are common and might be expected where the parents, especially the invasive T. angustifolia, are locally common (Crow and Hellquist, 2000b; Smith, 1967). USDA (2006) includes this species in every U.S. state except Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii.

7. Proportion of Current Range Where the Species is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity:Moderate significance
Comments: With disruptions to a community, cattail populations may respond by spreading vegetatively at a rapid rate. Although native Typha latifolia may outcompete Typha angustifolia if allowed to grow broad leaves that shade out the shade-intolerant Typha angustifolia, T. angustifolia is a more invasive species and persists in the presence of T. latifolia by retreating into deeper waters where T. latifolia cannot survive and by hybridizing with the native species to produce highly invasive hybrids (Grace and Wetzel, 1982; Miklovic, 2000; Smith, 1967). This species ranges from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia west to Quebec, Ontario, southern Saskatchewan, southern Montana, Wyoming and southeastern Oregon; and south to Florida, Georgia, Missouri, southern Texas; also in California and parts of Mexico. Hybrids between Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia (= Typha x glauca) are common and might be expected where the parents, especially the invasive T. angustifolia, are locally common (Crow and Hellquist, 2000b). Particularly, strands of the hybrid are especially common in the midwest and northeast.

8. Proportion of Nation's Biogeographic Units Invaded:High significance
Comments: TNC (2001)

9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Nation:Moderate significance
Comments: Typically, this species inhabits coastal salt marshes and inland in nutrient-rich fresh waters including damp shores, marshes, swamps, marshy river margins, and roadside ditches (Crow and Hellquist, 2000). Typha angustifolia is generally restricted to unstable environments, often with basic, calcareous, or somewhat salty soils (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987).

Subrank III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance: Medium/Low

10. Current Trend in Total Range within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Following initial colonization of the Atlantic seaboard in the 1800s, the species began to migrate westward along canals, railroad swales, and roadside ditches, following the development of transportation networks (Miklovic, 2000). Since that time, it has expanded to most states and much of Canada.

11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied:Low significance
Comments: Typha angustifolia is thought to be introduced from Europe (Stuckey and Salamon, 1987) but occurs in the northeastern range of the native Typha latifolia and is considered an invasive species due to its rapidly spreading range and ability to establish monospecific stands that displace native plants.

12. Long-distance Dispersal Potential within Nation:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Following initial colonization of the Atlantic seaboard in the 1800s, the species began to migrate westward along canals, railroad swales, and roadside ditches, following the development of transportation networks (Miklovic, 2000). Since that time, it has expanded to most states and much of Canada.

13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance:Medium/Low significance
Comments: The glaciated prairie region of North America, which covers areas of Iowa, Minnesota, the Dakotas, and southern Canada, overlaps part of T. angustifolia range and contains numerous marshes well suited for establishment, especially if disturbed thus allowing for the more invasive hybrid to colonize (Miklovic, 2000).

14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats:Moderate significance
Comments: Farnsworth et al. (2003) demonstrated that this species, when compared to other common native wetland species as well as three other invasive species, shows a high degree of invasiveness in terms of height growth and emergence time, biomass per ramet, standing leaf area, total leaf area per plant, standing crop, and total foliar chlorophyll. Typha angustifolia is considered a pioineer in secondary succession of disturbed bogs where it displaces native Typha latifolia (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987) as vegetative reproduction is extremely effective (Smith, 1967). Salinity tolerance is high and cattails have a wide amplitude compared to other species as they are tolerant to habitat changes, pollutants, and saline or basic substrates (Pianka, 1973 in Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). Often, increases in salinity (natural or unnatural) cause in increase in Typha angustifolia at the expense of dominant fen flora (Panno et al., 1999). Unlike other emergent species, T. angustifolia seeds do not require a dormancy period before germination (Smith, 1967; Baskin and Baskin, 1998), allowing germination to occur at any time during the growing season when favorable light and temperature conditions exist. Ditches along highway corridors have been shown to serve as migration corridors for invasive wetland plants (Wilcox, 1989).

15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Cattail populations can be found in remote locations like Alaska, where temperatures range from 7 to 24 C and -23 to -34 C in winter as well as 58 countries although few African countries report it as an important weed. It is more prevalent as a week in Europe and North America and Australia (Mitich, 2000).

16. Reproductive Characteristics:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Cattail colonies are commonly maintained by vegetative reproduction and a perennial root stock is the major organ responsible for reproduction (Smith, 1967). Germination requirements of Typha are few and seed germination can be 100% in slightly flooded conditions (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987).

Subrank IV. General Management Difficulty: Medium

17. General Management Difficulty:Moderate significance
Comments: Control techniques of fire and physical removal in conjunction with flooding are most appropriate (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). Control is best if plants are cut in late summer or early fall. Temporary flooding does not prevent later seed establishment, unless accompanied by burning (particularly if roots are burned). Chemical control has limited success but works best when cattails are mowed or cut below water level first (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). Control measures include flooding, prescribed burning, drainage, chemical control, biological control through muskrats, and mechanical removal or crushing; often in combination (complete review in Miklovik, 2000).

18. Minimum Time Commitment:Medium/Low significance
Comments: Time commitment generally high with draining because should be followed by burning to prevent seed bank germination and should be repeated. Further, burning alone provides little or no control (Nelson and Dietz, 1966 in Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987), unless roots are also burned. Flooding also must be repeated for two or more years. Chemical herbicide treatment is necessary for up to three years in some areas (Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987).

19. Impacts of Management on Native Species:High/Moderate significance
Comments: Draining, burning, and flooding a wetland significantly affects the overall community and can lead to entirely different plant communities (Mallik and Wein, 1986 in Motivans and Apfelbaum, 1987). Reinartz and Warne (1993) reported that artifically created wetlands seeded with a diversity of wetland plants resulted in much higher species diversity and richness than sites left to natural colonization (more Typha resulted from natural recolonization- 55%). Control techniques target all Typha spp. due to difficulty in identifying individual Typha species as well as the ability of all Typha spp. to co-exist and form one dense strand within a site (Miklovik, 2000).

20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas:Low significance
Comments: rInvaded areas are typically easily accessible but access to the roots for management and control (necessary for most control types) is difficult, at best.

Other Considerations: Some sources consider this species native to at least a portion of the United States (e.g. USDA-ARS 2005). However, the species was ranked following Kartesz (1999), who considers it exotic throughout the U.S.
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 27Oct1987
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: K. MOTIVANS, S. APFELBAUM, MRO
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 27Oct1987
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): K. MOTIVANS, S. APFELBAUM, MRO

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
  • Baskin, C.C. and J.M. Baskin. 1998. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. Academic Press, Boston.

  • 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.

  • Farnsworth, E.J. and L.A. Meyerson. 2003. Comparative ecophysiology of four wetland plant species along a continuum of invasiveness. Wetlands, 23(4): 750-762.

  • Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Vol. 22. Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part), and Zingiberidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii + 352 pp.

  • Grace, J.B. and R.G. Wetzel. 1982. Niche differentiation between two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia. Canadian Journal of Botany, 60: 46-57.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A. Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

  • Kuehn, M.M. and B.N. White. 1999. Morphological analysis of genetically identified cattails Taypha latifolia, Typha angustifolia and Typha x glauca. Canadian Journal of Botany, 77: 906-912.

  • Kuehn, M.M., J.E. Minor, and B.N. White. 1999. An examination of hybridization between the cattail species Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia using random amplified polymorphic DNA and chloroplast DNA markers. Molecular Ecology, 8: 1981-1990.

  • Miklovic, S. 2000. Typha angustifolia management: implications for glaical marsh restoration. Restoration and Reclamation Reviwe, 6: unpaginated.

  • Mitich, L.M. 2000. Common cattail, Typha latifolia L. Weed Technology, 14: 446-450.

  • Motivans, K. and S. Apfelbaum. 1987. Element stewardship abstract for Typha spp. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. unpaginated.

  • Ohio Department of Natural Areas and Parks. 2001. Invasive Plants of Ohio: Narrow-leaved and hybrid cattail. Fact Sheet 11. Available ONLINE: http://dnr.ohio.gov/dnap/invasive/default.htm

  • Panno, S.V., V.A. Nuzzo, K. Cartwright, B.R. Hensel, and I.G. Krapac. 1999. Impact of urban development on the chemical composition of ground water in a fen-wetland complex. Wetlands, 19: 236-245.

  • Reinartz, J.A. and E.L. Warne. 1993. Development of vegetation in small created wetlands in southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands, 13(3): 153-164.

  • Selbo, S.M. and A.A. Snow. 2004. The potential for hybridization between Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia in a constructed wetland. Aquatic Botany, 78: 361-369.

  • Smith, S. G. 1967. Experimental and natural hybrids in North America Typha (Typhaceae). Am. Midl. Nat. 78:257-287.

  • Stuckey, R.L.a nd D.P. Salamon. 1987. Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. American Journal of Botany, 74: 757.

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

  • USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. 2005. December 9 last update. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland. Available: http://www.ars-grin.gov2/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl (Accessed 2006).

  • 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.

  • Wilcox, D.A. 1989. Migration and control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria L.) along highway corridors. Environmental Management, 13: 365-370.

  • Woo, I. and J.B. Zedler. 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha x glauca? Wetlands, 22(3): 509-521.

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.