, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 369–377 | Cite as

Ecology of Native vs. Introduced Phragmites australis (Common Reed) in Chicago-Area Wetlands

  • Amy L. Price
  • Jeremie B. Fant
  • Daniel J. Larkin


Rapid spread of Phragmites australis (common reed) in North American wetlands is widely attributed to cryptic invasion by an introduced lineage. However, in the Midwestern U.S., the native subspecies (subsp. americanus) may also exhibit rapid expansion. Where both lineages occur, wetland managers are sometimes unsure whether they should limit management activities to the introduced lineage or control both. We conducted field studies to contrast the ecology of native and introduced Phragmites by pairing patches of each with native reference vegetation. We measured each lineage’s association with environmental conditions, their growth metrics (stem heights, stem densities, and plant cover), and their invasiveness as indicated by the diversity and composition of associated plant communities. Introduced Phragmites exhibited more robust growth than the native, and its growth was more positively correlated with increases in soil nutrient availability and salinity. Areas with introduced Phragmites had lower plant diversity and altered species composition relative to reference vegetation. We did not observe similar evidence of invasiveness in native Phragmites. We encourage wetland managers to differentiate populations by lineage and, unless there is compelling evidence to do otherwise, restrict control efforts to the introduced lineage.


Invasive species Eutrophication Cryptic invasion Midwest 


  1. Able KW, Ragan SM (2003) Impact of common reed, Phragmites australis, on essential fish habitat: Influence on reproduction, embryological development, and larval abundance of mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). Estuaries 26:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46Google Scholar
  3. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertness MD, Ewanchuk PJ, Silliman BR (2002) Anthropogenic modification of New England salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:1395–1398PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burdick D, Konisky RA (2003) Determinants of expansion for Phragmites australis, common reed, in natural and impacted coastal marshes. Estuaries 26:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casler MD, Phillips M, Krohn AL (2009) DNA Polymorphisms reveal geographic races of reed canarygrass. Crop Science 49:2139–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers RM, Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K (1999) Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers RM, Havens KJ, Killeen S, Berman M (2008) Common reed Phragmites australis occurrence and adjacent land use along estuarine shoreline in Chesapeake Bay. Wetlands 28:1097–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke K, Warwick R (2001) Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: An introduction using R. Wiley, Ltd, West Sussex, EnglandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP (1951) An upland forest continuum in the prairie-forest border region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenfeld JG (2003) Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrott RA, White PJ, White CAV (1993) Overabundance: an issue for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 7:946–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gratton C, Denno RF (2006) Arthropod food web restoration following removal of an invasive wetland plant. Ecological Applications 16:622–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs RJ, Huenneke LF (1992) Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hudon C (2004) Shift in wetland plant composition and biomass following low-level episodes in the St. Lawrence River: looking into the future. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:603–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Kettenring KM, McCormick MK, Baron HM, Whigham DF (2011) Mechanisms of Phragmites australis invasion: feedbacks among genetic diversity, nutrients, and sexual reproduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1305–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Meyerson LA, Gibson JR, Mock KE (2010) Nonnative Phragmites australis invasion into Utah wetlands. Western North American Naturalist 70:541–552Google Scholar
  23. Larkin DJ (2012) Lengths and correlates of lag phases in upper-Midwest plant invasions. Biological Invasions 14:827–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. League MT, Colbert EP, Seliskar DM, Gallagher JL (2006) Rhizome growth dynamics of native and exotic haplotypes of Phragmites australis (common reed). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29:269–276Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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 22:637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marks M, Lapin B, Randall J (1994) Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14:285–294Google Scholar
  28. Matoh T, Matsushita N, Takahashi E (1988) Salt tolerance of the reed plant Phragmites-communis. Physiologia Plantarum 72:8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyerson LA, Saltonstall K, Windham L, Kiviat E, Findlay S (2000) A comparison of Phragmites australis in freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America. Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyerson LA, Lambert AM, Saltonstall K (2010) A tale of three lineages: expansion of common reed (Phragmites australis) in the US Southwest and Gulf Coast. Invasive Plant Science and Management 3:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyerson LA, Lambertini C, McCormick MK, Whigham DF (2012) Hybridization of common reed in North America? The answer is blowing in the wind. AoB PLANTS. doi:10.1093/aobpla/pls022 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Minchinton TE, Bertness MD (2003) Disturbance-mediated competition and the spread of Phragmites australis in a coastal marsh. Ecological Applications 13:1400–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mozdzer TJ, Hutto CJ, Clarke PA, Field DP (2008) Efficacy of imazapyr and glyphosate in the control of non-native Phragmites australis. Restoration Ecology 2:221–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RG, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H (2013) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-7Google Scholar
  36. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-108Google Scholar
  38. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Rickey MA, Anderson RC (2004) Effects of nitrogen addition on the invasive grass Phragmites australis and a native competitor Spartina pectinata. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:888–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 of the United States of America 99:2445–2449PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saltonstall K (2003) A rapid method for identifying the origin of North American Phragmites populations using RFLP analysis. Wetlands 23:1043–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saltonstall K (2011) Remnant native Phragmites australis maintains genetic diversity despite multiple threats. Conservation Genetics 12:1027–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saltonstall K, Stevenson JC (2007) The effect of nutrients on seedling growth of native and introduced Phragmites australis. Aquatic Botany 86:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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, Contributions to Botany 21:683–692Google Scholar
  45. Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2004) Shoreline development drives invasion of Phragmites australis and the loss of plant diversity on New England salt marshes. Conservation Biology 18:1424–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simberloff D (2011) Native Invaders. In: Simberloff D, Rejmánek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California, Berkeley and Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  47. Taddeo S, de Blois S (2012) Coexistence of introduced and native common reed (Phragmites australis) in freshwater wetlands. Ecoscience 19:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Templer PH, Findlay S, Wigand C (1998) Sediment chemistry associated with native and non-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tulbure MG, Johnston CA (2010) Environmental conditions promoting non-native Phragmites australis expansion in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vasquez EA, Glenn EP, Brown JJ, Guntenspergen GR, Nelson SG (2005) Salt tolerance underlies the cryptic invasion of North American salt marshes by an introduced haplotype of the common reed Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Marine Ecology Progress Series 298:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vretare V, Weisner SE, Strand JA, Granéli W (2001) Phenotypic plasticity in Phragmites australis as a functional response to water depth. Aquatic Botany 69:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weaver R, Weaver T, Melchior P (2010) Eurasian Phragmites australis Haplotype M in Minnesota waterways. Proceedings of the 2010 Midwest ecology and evolution conference. Iowa State University, AmesGoogle Scholar
  53. Wijte AHBM, Gallagher JL (1996) Effect of oxygen availability and salinity on early life history stages of salt marsh plants. I. Different germination strategies of Spartina alterniflora and Phragmites australis (Poaceae). American Journal of Botany 83:1337–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Windham L, Meyerson LA (2003) Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northeastern US. Estuaries 26:452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zedler JB, Kercher S (2004) Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy L. Price
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeremie B. Fant
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Larkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Science and Conservation, Chicago Botanic GardenGlencoeUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Program in Plant Biology and ConservationNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations