Biological Invasions

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 2489–2504 | Cite as

Genetic diversity, reproductive mode, and dispersal differ between the cryptic invader, Phragmites australis, and its native conspecific

  • Karin M. KettenringEmail author
  • Karen E. Mock
Original Paper


Genetic diversity and reproductive mode can control whether an introduced species becomes invasive. Here we use genetic tools to compare the non-native, invasive Phragmites australis to its native conspecific, P. australis subsp. americanus, in wetlands of Utah and southern Idaho. We found striking differences in genetic structuring, population diversity, and mode of reproduction between the two lineages. Non-native P. australis exhibited substantially more genetic homogeneity among populations, greater local genet richness, greater genetic diversity among individuals, and smaller average clone size compared to the native lineage. These findings suggest that non-native P. australis relies more heavily on sexual reproduction and disperses pollen and/or seeds more widely than native P. australis. We also found no evidence of hybridization between the two lineages, nor did we find evidence of local extirpations of native by non-native P. australis based on historical collection sites we revisited. Given the ability of non-native P. australis to disperse widely by seeds, we recommend careful monitoring of critical wetland habitat to detect new non-native P. australis invasions and incorporating new practices into Phragmites management that limit sexual reproduction.


Clonal diversity Common reed Genetic diversity Hybridization Seed and rhizome dispersal Sexual and asexual reproduction 



We thank Jer Pin Chong for assistance with the molecular analysis, and Jared Baker and Mike Taylor for assistance in the field. Funding was provided by the Intermountain West Joint Venture, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Utah Wetlands Foundation.

Supplementary material

10530_2012_246_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4.97 mb)


  1. Able KW, Hagan SM, Brown SA (2003) Mechanisms of marsh habitat alteration due to Phragmites: Response of young-of-the-year mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) to treatment for Phragmites removal. Est Coasts 26:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsberry L, Baker MA, Ewanchuk PJ et al (2000) Clonal integration and the expansion of Phragmites australis. Ecol Appl 10:1110–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin AH, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2010) Seed banks of Phragmites australis-dominated brackish wetlands: relationships to seed viability, inundation, and land cover. Aquat Bot 93:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett SCH, Colautti RI, Eckert CG (2008) Plant reproductive systems and evolution during biological invasion. Mol Ecol 17:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bart D, Hartman JM (2000) Environmental determinants of Phragmites australis expansion in a New Jersey salt marsh: an experimental approach. Oikos 89:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bart D, Hartman JM (2002) Environmental constraints on early establishment of Phragmites australis in salt marshes. Wetlands 22:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bart D, Hartman JM (2003) The role of large rhizome dispersal and low salinity windows in the establishment of common reed, Phragmites australis, in salt marshes: New links to human activities. Est Coasts 26:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belzile F, Labbé J, LeBlanc M-C et al (2010) Seeds contribute strongly to the spread of the invasive genotype of the common reed (Phragmites australis). Biol Invasions 12:2243–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benham JJ (2001) Genographer, version 1.6.0. Montana State University, Bozeman, MontanaGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossdorf O, Auge H, Lafuma L et al (2005) Phenotypic and genetic differentiation between native and introduced plant populations. Oecologia 144:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clevering OA, Lissner J (1999) Taxonomy, chromosome numbers, clonal diversity and population dynamics of Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 64:185–208Google Scholar
  12. Clevering OA, Brix H, Lukavska J (2001) Geographic variation in growth responses in Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 69:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daehler CC (2003) Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeWalt SJ, Denslow JS, Ickes K (2004) Natural-enemy release facilitates habitat expansion of the invasive tropical shrub Clidemia hirta. Ecol 85:471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dlugosch KM, Parker IM (2008) Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions. Mol Ecol 17:431–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2002) AFLPOP: a computer program for simulated and real population allocation, based on AFLP data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:380–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellstrand NC, Schierenbeck KA (2000) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Proc Nat Acad Sci 97:7043–7050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellstrand N, Schierenbeck K (2006) Hybridization as a stimulus for the evolution of invasiveness in plants? Euphyt 148:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: Application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131:479–491Google Scholar
  20. Facon B, Pointier J-P, Jarne P et al (2008) High genetic variance in life-history strategies within invasive populations by way of multiple introductions. Curr Biol 18:363–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Genton BJ, Shykoff JA, Giraud T (2005) High genetic diversity in French invasive populations of common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, as a result of multiple sources of introduction. Mol Ecol 14:4275–4285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen DL, Lambertini C, Jampeetong A et al (2007) Clone-specific differences in Phragmites australis: Effects of ploidy level and geographic origin. Aquat Bot 86:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardy OJ (2003) Estimation of pairwise relatedness between individuals and characterization of isolation-by-distance processes using dominant genetic markers. Mol Ecol 12:1577–1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDI: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2:618–620Google Scholar
  26. Hauswaldt JS, Glenn TC (2003) Microsatellite DNA loci from the Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin). Mol Ecol Notes 3:174–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holdredge C, Bertness MD, Von Wettberg E et al (2010) Nutrient enrichment enhances hidden differences in phenotype to drive a cryptic plant invasion. Oikos 119:1776–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchison DW, Templeton AR (1999) Correlation of pairwise genetic and geographic distance measures: inferring the relative influences of gene flow and drift on the distribution of genetic variability. Evolution 53:1898–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keane RM, Crawley MJ (2002) Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol Evol 17:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keller BEM (2000) Plant diversity in Lythrum, Phragmites, and Typha marshes, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Wetlands Ecol Manage 8:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2009) Seed viability and seed dormancy of non-native Phragmites australis in suburbanized and forested watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Aquat Bot 91:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM et al (2010) Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion in the Rhode River subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay: disentangling the effects of foliar nutrients, genetic diversity, patch size, and seed viability. Est Coasts 33:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM et al (2011) Mechanisms of Phragmites australis invasion: feedbacks among genetic diversity, nutrients, and sexual reproduction. J Appl Ecol 48:1305–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirk H, Paul J, Straka J et al (2011) Long-distance dispersal and high genetic diversity are implicated in the invasive spread of the common reed, Phragmites australis (Poaceae), in northeastern North America. Am J Bot 98:1180–1190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Koppitz H, Kühl H (2000) To the importance of genetic diversity of Phragmites australis in the development of reed stands. Wetlands Ecol Manage 8:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Meyerson LA et al (2011) Nonnative Phragmites australis invasion into Utah wetlands. West N Am Nat 70:541–552Google Scholar
  37. Lavergne S, Molofsky J (2007) Increased genetic variation and evolutionary potential drive the success of an invasive grass. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:3883–3888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. League M, Colbert E, Seliskar D et al (2006) Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites australis (Common reed). Est Coasts 29:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Marks M, Lapin B, Randall J (1994) Phragmites australis (Phragmites communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Nat Areas J 14:285–294Google Scholar
  41. McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM et al (2010a) Extent and reproductive mechanisms of Phragmites australis spread in brackish wetlands in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (USA). Wetlands 30:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCormick MK, Kettenring KM, Baron HM et al (2010b) Spread of invasive Phragmites australis in estuaries with differing degrees of development: genetic patterns, Allee effects and interpretation. J Ecol 98:1369–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meirmans PG, van Tienderen PH (2004) GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol Ecol Notes 4:792–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meyerson LA, Chambers RM, Vogt KA (1999) The effects of Phragmites removal on nutrient pools in a freshwater tidal marsh ecosystem. Biol Invasions 1:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meyerson LA, Lambert AM, Saltonstall K (2010a) A tale of three lineages: expansion of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the U.S. Southwest and Gulf Coast. Inv Pl Sci Mngt 3:515–520Google Scholar
  46. Meyerson LA, Viola DV, Brown RN (2010b) Hybridization of invasive Phragmites australis with a native subspecies in North America. Biol Invasions 12:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:1400–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Minchinton TE, Simpson JC, Bertness MD (2006) Mechanisms of exclusion of native coastal marsh plants by an invasive grass. J Ecol 94:342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mock KE, Brim-Box JC, Miller MP et al (2004) Genetic diversity and divergence among freshwater mussel (Anodonta) populations in the Bonneville Basin of Utah. Mol Ecol 13:1085–1098PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC (2010) Ecophysiological differences between genetic lineages facilitate the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis in North American Atlantic coast wetlands. J Ecol 98:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mozdzer T, Zieman J, McGlathery K (2010) Nitrogen uptake by native and invasive temperate coastal macrophytes: Importance of dissolved organic nitrogen. Est Coasts 33:784–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paetkau D (2004) The optimal number of markers in genetic capture-mark-recapture studies. J Wildl Manage 68:449–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paul J, Vachon N, Garroway C et al (2010) Molecular data provide strong evidence of natural hybridization between native and introduced lineages of Phragmites australis in North America. Biol Invasions 12:2967–2973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peakall R, Smouse P (2006) GenAlEx 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Raicu P, Staicu S, Stoian V et al (1972) The Phragmites communis Trin. chromosome complement in the Danube Delta. Hydrobiol 39:83–89Google Scholar
  57. Rejmánek M, Richardson DM (1996) What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecol 77:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proc Nat Acad Sci 99:2445–2449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saltonstall K (2003a) Genetic variation among North American populations of Phragmites australis: implications for management. Est Coasts 26:444–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saltonstall K (2003b) Microsatellite variation within and among North American lineages of Phragmites australis. Mol Ecol 12:1689–1702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saltonstall K (2003c) A rapid method for identifying the origin of North American Phragmites populations using RFLP analysis. Wetlands 23:1043–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saltonstall K (2011) Remnant native Phragmites australis maintains genetic diversity despite multiple threats. Conserv Genet 12:1027–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Saltonstall K, Stevenson JC (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquat Bot 86:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saltonstall K, Peterson PM, Soreng RJ (2004) Recognition of Phragmites australis subsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: evidence from morphological and genetic analyses. SIDA 21:683–692Google Scholar
  66. Saltonstall K, Glennon K, Burnett A et al (2007) Comparison of morphological variation indicative of ploidy level in Phragmites australis (Poaceae) from eastern North America. Rhodora 109:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saltonstall K, Lambert A, Meyerson LA (2010) Genetics and reproduction of common (Phragmites australis) and giant reed (Arundo donax). Inv Pl Sci Mngt 3:495–505Google Scholar
  68. Silvertown J (2008) The evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction: evidence from the ecological distribution of asexual reproduction in clonal plants. Int J Pl Sci 169:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swearingen J, Saltonstall K (2010) Phragmites field guide: distinguishing native and exotic forms of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the United StatesGoogle Scholar
  70. Talley TS, Levin LA (2001) Modification of sediments and macrofauna by an invasive marsh plant. Biol Invasions 3:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vasquez EA, Glenn EP, Brown JJ et al (2005) Salt tolerance underlies the cryptic invasion of North American salt marshes by an introduced haplotype of the common reed Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 298:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M et al (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitney KD, Gabler CA (2008) Rapid evolution in introduced species, ‘invasive traits’ and recipient communities: challenges for predicting invasive potential. Div Dist 14:569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Windham L, Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:883–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright S (1946) Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics 31:39–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Watershed Sciences and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Ecology Center and Department of Wildland ResourcesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations