, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 577–589 | Cite as

Relationships of Native and Exotic Strains of Phragmites australis to Wetland Ecosystem Properties

  • L. A. Volesky
  • S. Iqbal
  • J. J. Kelly
  • P. GeddesEmail author
Original Research


Invasions by exotic plant species like Phragmites australis can affect wetlands and the services they provide, including denitrification. Native and exotic Phragmites strains were genetically verified in 2002 but few studies have compared their ecosystem effects. We compared relationships between native and exotic Phragmites and environmental attributes, soil nutrient concentrations, and abundance and activity of soil denitrifying bacteria. There were no significant differences for any measured variables between sites with exotic and native strains. However, there were significant positive correlations between native Phragmites stem density and soil nutrient concentrations and denitrification rates. Furthermore, denitrifying bacterial abundance was positively correlated with nitrate concentration and denitrification rates. Additionally, there were significant negative correlations between water levels in native Phragmites sites and native stem density, nutrient concentrations, and denitrification rates. Surprisingly, we found no significant relationships between exotic stem density or water level and measured variables. These results suggest 1) the native strain may have important ecosystem effects that had only been documented for exotic Phragmites, and 2) abiotic drivers such as water level may have mediated this outcome. Further work is needed to determine if the stem density gradients were a consequence, rather than a cause, of pre-existing gradients of abiotic factors.


Phragmites australis Denitrification Soil nutrients Phragmites australis Subspecies americanus Exotic haplotype M nirS 



We would like to thank our collaborators at the Chicago Botanic Garden, Dan Larkin, Jeremie Fant, Amy Price, and Paul Hartzog, for genetically identifying Phragmites and allowing us to conduct nitrate analyses. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the support of Kane, DuPage, and Lake (IN) County Forest Preserves, and IL Nature Preserves Commission for permits and access to sites. We thank John Kasmer and Joel Olfelt for their editorial contributions to the manuscript, and Lynnette Murphy for creating the map of sampling sites. Financial support for this study was provided by a Research Starter Grant to P.G. from the National Science Foundation (DEB 1034855). Work by S.I. was supported by a Loyola University Chicago WISER Fellowship.


  1. Alldred M, Baines SB, Findlay S (2016) Effects of invasive-plant management on nitrogen removal services in freshwater marshes. PLoS One 11(2):e0149813. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Angeloni NL, Jankowski KJ, Tuchman NC, Kelly JJ (2006) Effects of an invasive cattail species (Typha x glauca) on sediment nitrogen and microbial community composition in a freshwater wetland. FEMS Microbiology Letters 263:86–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Araki R, Mori M, Mori M, Hasegawa H (2005) Genetic differences in nitrate uptake in two clones of the common reed, Phragmites australis. Breeding Science 55:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastviken SK, Eriksson PG, Premrov A, Tonderski K (2005) Potential denitrification in wetland sediments with different plant species detritus. Ecological Engineering 25:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braker G, Fesefeldt A, Witzel KP (1998) Development of PCR primer systems for amplification of nitrite reductase genes (nirK and nirS) to detect denitrifying bacteria in environmental samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64:3769–3775PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey CJ, Blankinship JC, Eviner VT, Malmstrom CM, Hart SC (2017) Invasive plants decrease microbial capacity to nitrify and denitrify compared to native California grassland communities. Biological Invasions:1–17.
  8. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambers RM, Osgood DT, Bart DJ, Montalto F (2003) Phragmites australis invasion and expansion in tidal wetlands: interactions among salinity, sulfide, and hydrology. Estuaries 26(2B):398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dassonville N, Guillaumaud N, Piola F, Meerts P, Poly F (2011) Niche construction by the invasive Asian knotweeds (species complex Fallopia): impact on activity, abundance and community structure of denitrifiers and nitrifiers. Biological Invasions 13:1115–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derr JF (2008) Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duke S, Francoeur SN, Judd KE (2015) Effects of Phragmites australis invasion on carbon dynamics in a freshwater marsh. Wetlands 35(2):311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecological Engineering 15:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eid ME, Shaltout KH, Al-Sodany YM, Jensen K (2010) Effects of abiotic conditions on Phragmites australis along geographic gradients in Lake Burullus, Egypt. Aquatic Botany 92(2):86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engloner AI (2009) Structure, growth dynamics and biomass of reed (Phragmites australis) – a review. Flora 204:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans RD, Rimer R, Sperry L, Belnap J (2001) Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecological Applications 11(5):1301–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PO (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geddes P, Grancharova T, Kelly JJ, Treering D, Tuchman NC (2014) Effects of invasive Typha x glauca on wetland nutrient pools, denitrification, and bacterial communities are influenced by time since invasion. Aquatic Ecology 48:247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geets J, de Cooman M, Wittebolle L, Heylen K, Vanparys B, De Vos P, Verstraete W, Boon N (2007) Real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous quantification of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria in activated sludge. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 75(1):211–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Groffman PM, Holland EA, Myrold DD, Robertson GP, Zou X (1999) Denitrification. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 272–288Google Scholar
  22. Groffman PM, Altabet MA, Bohlke JK, Butterbach-Bahl K, David MB, Firestone MK, Giblin AE, Kana TM, Nielsen LP, Voytek MA (2006) Methods for measuring denitrification: diverse approaches to a difficult problem. Ecological Applications 16(6):2091–2122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen DL, Lambertini C, Jampeetong A, Brix H (2007) Clone-specific differences in Phragmites australis: effects of ploidy level and geographic origin. Aquatic Botany 86:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirtreiter JN, Potts DL (2012) Canopy structure, photosynthetic capacity and nitrogen distribution in adjacent mixed and monospecific stands of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia. Plant Ecology 213:821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holdredge C, Bertness MD (2011) Litter legacy increases the competitive advantage of invasive Phragmites australis in New England wetlands. Biological Invasions 13:423–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holdredge C, Bertness MD, von Wettberg E, Silliman BR (2010) Nutrient enrichment enhances hidden differences in phenotype to drive a cryptic plant invasion. Oikos 119:1776–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jodoin Y, Lavoie C, Villeneuve P, Theriault M, Beaulieu J, Belzile F (2008) Highways as corridors and habitats for the invasive common reed Phragmites australis in Quebec, Canada. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Meyerson LA, Gibson JR, Mock KE (2010) Nonnative Phragmites australis invasion into Utah wetlands. Western North American Naturalist 70(4):541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larkin D, Freyman MJ, Lishawa SC, Geddes P, Tuchman NC (2011) Mechanisms of dominance by the invasive cattail Typha x glauca. Biological Invasions 14:827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. League MT, Colbert EP, Seliskar DM, Gallagher JL (2006) Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites australis (common reed). Estuaries and Coasts 29(2):269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lelong B, Lavoie C, Jodoin Y, Belzile F (2007) Expansion pathways of the exotic common reed (Phragmites australis): a historical and genetic analysis. Diversity and Distributions 13:430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liao C, Peng R, Luo Y, Zhou X, Wu X, Fang C, Chen J, Li B (2008) Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis. The New Phytologist 177:706–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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). Aquatic Sciences 76:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch EA, Saltonstall K (2002) Paleoecological and genetic analyses provide evidence for recent colonization of native Phragmites australis populations in a Lake superior wetland. Wetlands 22(4):637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin LJ, Blossey B (2013) The runaway weed: costs and failures of Phragmites australis management in the USA. Estuaries and Coasts 36(3):626–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehlich A (1953) Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. Soil testing div. Publ. 1-53. North Carolina Dept. Agriculture, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Windham L, Kiviat E, Findlay S (2000a) A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyerson LA, Vogt KA, Chambers RM (2000b) Linking the success of Phragmites to the alteration of ecosystem nutrient cycles. In: Weinstein MP, Kreeger DA (eds) Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 827–844Google Scholar
  39. Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Chambers RM (2009) Phragmites australis in eastern North America: a historical and ecological perspective. In: Silliman BR, Grosholz E, Bertness MD (eds) Salt marshes under global siege. University of California Press, California, pp 57–82Google Scholar
  40. Meyerson LA, Viola DA, Brown RN (2010) Hybridization of invasive Phragmites australis with a native subspecies in North America. Biological Invasions 12:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Mozdzer TJ, Megonigal JP (2012) Jack-and-master trait responses to elevated CO2 and N: a comparison of native and introduced Phragmites australis. PLoS One 7(10):e42794. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Mozdzer TJ, Zieman JC (2010) Ecophysiological differences between genetic lineages facilitate the invasion of non-native Phragmites australis in north American Atlantic coast wetlands. Journal of Ecology 98:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mozdzer TJ, Brisson J, Hazelton ELG (2013) Physiological ecology and functional traits of north American native and Eurasian introduced Phragmites australis lineages. AoB PLANTS 5:plt048. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Mozdzer TJ, Langley JA, Mueller P, Megonigal JP (2016) Deep rooting and global change facilitate spread of invasive grass. Biological Invasions 18:2619–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nijburg JW, Laanbroek HJ (1997) The fate of 15N-nitrate in healthy and declining Phragmites australis stands. Microbial Ecology 34:254–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Packett CR, Chambers RM (2006) Distribution and nutrient status of haplotypes of the marsh grass Phragmites australis along the Rappahannock River in Virginia. Estuaries and Coasts 29:1222–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Price AL, Fant JB, Larkin DJ (2014) Ecology of native vs. introduced Phragmites australis (common reed) in Chicago-area wetlands. Wetlands 34:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (1999) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodríguez M, Brisson J (2015) Pollutant removal efficiency of native versus exotic common reed (Phragmites australis) in north American treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering 74:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rogalski MA, Skelly DK (2012) Positive effects of nonnative invasive Phragmites australis on larval bullfrogs. PLoS One 7(8):e44420. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Rooth JE, Stevenson JC, Cornwell JC (2003) Increased sediment accretion rates following invasion by Phragmites australis: the role of litter. Estuaries 26(2B):475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothman E, Bouchard V (2007) Regulation of carbon processes by macrophyte species in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Wetlands 27(4):1134–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ruiz-Rueda O, Hallin S, Baneras L (2009) Structure and function of denitrifying bacterial communities in relation to the plant species in a constructed wetland. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 67(2):308–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Saltonstall K (2002) Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:2445–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saltonstall K (2016) The naming of Phragmites haplotypes. Biological Invasions 18:2433–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saltonstall K, Hauber D (2007) Notes on Phragmites australis (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America. Journal of Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1:385–388Google Scholar
  58. Saltonstall K, Stevenson JC (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 86:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Saltonstall K, Peterson PM, Soreng RJ (2004) Recognition of Phragmites australis subsp. americanus (Poaceae: Arundinoideae) in North America: evidence from morphological and genetic analysis. SIDA 21(2):683–692Google Scholar
  60. Saltonstall K, Lambert A, Meyerson LA (2010) Genetics and reproduction of common and giant reed. Invasive Plant Science and Management 3:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Theuerkauf SJ, Puckett BJ, Theuerkauf KW, Theuerkauf EJ, Eggleston DB (2017) Density-dependent role of an invasive marsh grass, Phragmites Australis, on ecosystem service provision. PLoS One 12(2):e0173007. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Throbäck IN, Enwall K, Jarvis S, Hallin S (2004) Reassessing PCR primers targeting nirS, nirK and nosZ genes for community surveys of denitrifying bacteria with DGGE. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 49:401–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Tulbure MG, Johnston KA (2010) Environmental conditions promoting non-native Phragmites Australis expansion in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vretare V, Weisner SEB, Strand JA, Granéli W (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in Phragmites australis as a functional response to water depth. Aquatic Botany 69:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang WQ, Sardans J, Wang C, Zeng CS, Tong C, Asensio D, Peñuelas J (2015) Ecological stoichiometry of C, N, and P of invasive Phragmites australis and native Cyperus malaccensis species in the Minjiang River tidal estuarine wetlands of China. Plant Ecology 216(6):809–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Welch BA, Davis CB, Gates RJ (2006) Dominant environmental factors in wetland plant communities invaded by Phragmites australis in East Harbor, Ohio, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management 14(6):511–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wetzel RG, Likens GE (1991) Limnological analyses. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Windham L (2001) Comparison of biomass production and decomposition between Phragmites australis (common reed) and Spartina patens (salt hay grass) in brackish tidal marshes of New Jersey, USA. Wetlands 21(2):179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Windham L, Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen-cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecological Applications 13(4):883–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Windham L, Lathrop RG (1999) Effects of Phragmites australis (common reed) invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Estuaries 22(4):927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Windham L, Meyerson LA (2003) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northern US. Estuaries 26(2B):452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yarwood SA, Baldwin AH, Gonzalez Mateu M, Buyer JS (2016) Archaeal rhizosphere communities differ between the native and invasive lineages of the wetland plant Phragmites australis (common reed) in a Chesapeake Bay subestuary. Biological Invasions 18:2717–2728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(2):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zumft WG (1997) Cell biology and molecular basis of denitrification. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 61:533–536PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyNortheastern Illinois UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations