Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 457–467 | Cite as

Herbicide management of invasive cattail (Typha × glauca) increases porewater nutrient concentrations

  • Beth A. LawrenceEmail author
  • Shane C. Lishawa
  • Yarency Rodriguez
  • Nancy C. Tuchman
Original Paper


Invasive wetland plants are the primary targets of wetland management to promote native communities and wildlife habitat, but little is known about how commonly implemented restoration techniques influence nutrient cycling. We tested how experimental mowing, herbicide application, and biomass harvest (i.e., removal of aboveground biomass) treatments of Typha-invaded mesocosms altered porewater nutrient (NO3 , NH4 +, PO 4 −3 ) concentration and supply rate, vegetation response, and light penetration to the soil surface. We found that while herbicide application eliminated the target species, it also reduced native plant density and biomass, as well as increased porewater nutrient concentration (PO 4 −3 , NO3 ) and supply rates (N, P, K) up to a year after treatments were implemented. Because herbicide application promotes nutrient enrichment, it may increase the likelihood of reinvasion by problematic wetland invaders, as well as cause eutrophication and deleterious algal blooms in adjacent aquatic systems. Our data suggest that biomass harvest should be considered by managers aiming to reduce Typha abundance without eradicating native diversity, avoid nutrient leaching, as well as possibly utilizing biomass for bioenergy.


Biomass harvest Hybrid cattail Glyphosate Mowing Management Wetland management 



Many thanks to Jennifer Croskrey and Margaret Workman for assistance with nutrient analysis, and to Jesse Albert, Drew Monks, Erica Marcos, Nia Hurst, Kelsey Berke, and Brendan Carson for watering the mesocosms and assisting with data collection.


A portion of this project was supported by NSF (AGS-1262634) to Dave Karowe and Mary Anne Carroll, which provided Y. Rodriguez with an REU opportunity during the 2013 summer. Additionally, an EPA GLRI (GL-00E00545) award provided summer salary to B. Lawrence.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

Lawrence has received research grants from the NSF and EPA. Lishawa has received research grants from the EPA and the Northern Trust Company Charitable Trust. Tuchman has received research grants from the EPA, USDA, DOE, NSF, NOAA, and the Northern Trust Company Charitable Trust. Tuchman is the director of The Institute of Environmental Sustainability (Loyola University Chicago), a member of the board of trustees for the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum and the Delta Institute, and on the Environmental Law and Policy Center’s advisory board.


  1. Anderson DM, Glibert PM, Burkholder JM (2002) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25:704–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apfelbaum S (1985) Cattail (Typha spp.) management. Nat Areas J 5:9–17Google Scholar
  3. Boers AM, Zedler JB (2008) Stabilized water levels and Typha invasiveness. Wetlands 28:676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd C (1970) Vascular aquatic plants for mineral nutrient removal from polluted waters. Econ Bot 24:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd M, Brown M, Brandt-Williams S (2015) Addressing pollutant load reduction goals for impaired waterbodies through biomass harvest of Phragmites australis (common reed). Wetl Ecol Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11273-015-9406-6 Google Scholar
  6. Chen X-C, Kong H-N, He S-B, Wu D-Y, Li C-J, Huang X-C (2009) Reducing harmful algae in raw water by light-shading. Process Biochem 44:357–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cicek N, Lambert S, Venema H, Snelgrove K, Bibeau E, Grosshans R (2006) Nutrient removal and bio-energy production from Netley-Libau Marsh at Lake Winnipeg through annual biomass harvesting. Biomass Bioenergy 30:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley DJ et al (2009) Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323:1014–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrer EC, Goldberg DE (2009) Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecol Appl 19:398–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrer EC, Goldberg DE (2014) Mechanisms and reversibility of the effects of hybrid cattail on a Great Lakes marsh. Aquat Bot 116:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Findlay S, Groffman P, Dye S (2003) Effects of Phragmites australis removal on marsh nutrient cycling. Wetl Ecol Manag 11:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeland J, Ciotir C, Kirk H (2013) Regional differences in the abundance of native, introduced, and hybrid Typha spp. in northeastern North America influence wetland invasions. Biol Invasions 15:2651–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frieswyk CB, Zedler JB (2006) Do seed banks confer resilience to coastal wetlands invaded by Typha × glauca? Can J Bot 84:1882–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frieswyk CB, Zedler JB (2007) Vegetation change in great lakes coastal wetlands: deviation from the historical cycle. J Great Lakes Res 33:366–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gami B, Limbachiya R, Parmar R, Bhimani H, Patel B (2011) An evaluation of different non-woody and woody biomass of Gujarat, India for preparation of pellets—a solid biofuel. Energy Sources Part A 33:2078–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall SJ, Zedler JB (2010) Constraints on sedge meadow self-restoration in urban wetlands. Restor Ecol 18:671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall SJ, Lindig-Cisneros R, Zedler JB (2008) Does harvesting sustain plant diversity in central Mexican wetlands? Wetlands 28:776–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson P, Fredriksson H (2004) Use of summer harvested common reed (Phragmites australis) as nutrient source for organic crop production in Sweden. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102:365–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazelton EL, Mozdzer TJ, Burdick DM, Kettenring KM, Whigham DF (2014) Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes. AoB Plants. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu001 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrman KS, Scott DT, Lenters JD, Istanbulluoglu E (2012) Nutrient loss following Phragmites australis removal in controlled soil mesocosms. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:3333–3344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Homan H, Linz G, Carlson R, Bleier W (2003) Spring distribution of ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) following cattail reduction with glyphosate herbicide. Wildl Res 30:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hosoi Y, Kido Y, Miki M, Sumida M (1998) Field examination on reed growth, harvest and regeneration for nutrient removal. Water Sci Technol 38:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordan T, Whigham D (1988) The importance of standing dead shoots of the narrow leaved cattail, Typha angustifolia L. Aquat Bot 29:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kercher SM, Zedler JB (2004) Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138:455–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Köbbing J, Thevs N, Zerbe S (2013) The utilisation of reed (Phragmites australis): a review. Mires Peat 13:1–14Google Scholar
  27. Larkin DJ, Freyman MJ, Lishawa SC, Geddes P, Tuchman NC (2012a) Mechanisms of dominance by the invasive hybrid cattail Typha × glauca. Biol Invasions 14:65–77. doi: 10.1007/s10530-011-0059-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larkin DJ, Lishawa SC, Tuchman NC (2012b) Appropriation of nitrogen by the invasive cattail Typha × glauca. Aquat Bot 100:62–66. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leitch J, Linz G, Baltezore J (1997) Economics of cattail (Typha spp.) control to reduce blackbird damage to sunflower. Agric Ecosyst Environ 65:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linz GM, Homan HJ (2011) Use of glyphosate for managing invasive cattail (Typha spp.) to disperse blackbird (Icteridae) roosts. Crop Prot 30:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lishawa SC, Albert DA, Tuchman NC (2010) Water level decline promotes Typha × glauca establishment and vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:1085–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lishawa SC, Jankowski KJ, Geddes P, Larkin DJ, Monks AM, Tuchman NC (2014) Denitrification in a Laurentian Great Lakes coastal wetland invaded by hybrid cattail (Typha × glauca). Aquat Sci 76:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lishawa SC, Lawrence BA, Albert DA, Tuchman NC (2015) Biomass harvest of invasive Typha promotes plant diversity in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Restor Ecol. doi: 10.1111/rec.12167 Google Scholar
  34. Manios T, Laux D, Manios V, Stentiford E (2003) Cattail plant biomass as a bulking agent in sewage sludge composting; Effect of the compost on plant growth. Compost Sci Util 11:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin LJ, Blossey B (2013) The runaway weed: costs and failures of Phragmites australis management in the USA. Estuaries Coasts 36:626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin MR, Tipping PW, Reddy K, Daroub SH, Roberts KM (2010) Interactions of biological and herbicidal management of Melaleuca quinquenervia with fire: consequences for ecosystem services. Biol Control 54:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecol Appl 13:1400–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell ME, Lishawa SC, Geddes P, Larkin DJ, Treering D, Tuchman NC (2011) Time-dependent impacts of cattail invasion in a Great Lakes coastal wetland complex. Wetlands 31:1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murkin H, Ward P (1980) Early spring cutting to control cattail in a northern marsh. Wildl Soc Bull 8:254–256Google Scholar
  40. Osland MJ, González E, Richardson CJ (2011) Restoring diversity after cattail expansion: disturbance, resilience, and seasonality in a tropical dry wetland. Ecol Appl 21:715–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  43. Rooth JE, Stevenson JC, Cornwall JC (2003) Increased sediment accretion rates following invasion by Phragmites australis: the role of litter. Estuaries 26:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rueppel ML, Brightwell BB, Schaefer J, Marvel JT (1977) Metabolism and degradation of glyphosate in soil and water. J Agric Food Chem 25:517–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruiz M, Velasco J (2010) Nutrient bioaccumulation in Phragmites australis: management tool for reduction of pollution in the Mar Menor. Water Air Soil Pollut 205:173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schindler DW et al (2008) Eutrophication of lakes cannot be controlled by reducing nitrogen input: results of a 37-year whole-ecosystem experiment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:11254–11258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Solberg KL, Higgins KF (1993) Effects of glyphosate herbicide on cattails, invertebrates, and waterfowl in South Dakota wetlands. Wildl Soc Bull 21:299–307Google Scholar
  48. Tuchman N, Larkin D, Geddes P, Wildova R, Jankowski K, Goldberg D (2009) Patterns of environmental change associated with Typha × glauca invasion in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Wetlands 29:964–975. doi: 10.1672/08-71.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tulbure MG, Johnston CA, Auger DL (2007) Rapid invasion of a Great Lakes coastal wetland by non-native Phragmites australis and Typha. J Great Lakes Res 33:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaccaro LE, Bedford BL, Johnston CA (2009) Litter accumulation promotes dominance of invasive species of cattails (Typha spp.) in Lake Ontario wetlands. Wetlands 29:1036–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha × glauca? Wetlands 22:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zedler J (2009) Feedbacks that might sustain natural, invaded and restored states in herbaceous wetlands. In: Hobbs RJ, Suding KN (eds) New models for ecosystem dynamics and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 236–258Google Scholar
  53. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth A. Lawrence
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Shane C. Lishawa
    • 2
    • 4
  • Yarency Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Nancy C. Tuchman
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Science and Studies DepartmentDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.University of Michigan Biological StationPellstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Environmental SustainabilityLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations