Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 8, Issue 2–3, pp 89–103 | Cite as

A comparison of Phragmites australisin freshwater and brackish marsh environments in North America

  • L.A. Meyerson
  • K. Saltonstall
  • L. Windham
  • E. Kiviat
  • S. Findlay


This paper compares the available North Americanliterature and data concerning several ecologicalfactors affecting Phragmites australisin inlandfreshwater, tidal fresh, and tidal brackish marshsystems. We compare aboveground productivity, plantspecies diversity, and sediment biogeochemistry; andwe summarize Phragmiteseffects on faunalpopulations in these habitats. These data suggest thatPhragmitesaboveground biomass is higher thanthat of other plant species occurring in the samemarsh system. Available data do not indicate anysignificant difference in the aboveground Phragmitesbiomass between marsh types, nor doesthere appear to be an effect of salinity on height.However, Phragmitesstem density wassignificantly lower in inland non-tidal freshwatermarshes than in tidal marshes, whether fresh orbrackish. Studies of the effects of Phragmiteson plant species richness suggest that Phragmitesdominated sites have lower diversity.Furthermore, Phragmiteseradication infreshwater sites increased plant diversity in allcases. Phragmitesdominated communities appearto have different patterns of nitrogen cyclingcompared to adjacent plant communities. Abovegroundstanding stocks of nitrogen (N) were found to behigher in Phragmitessites compared to thosewithout Phragmites. Porewater ammonium(NH4+) did not differ among plant covertypes in the freshwater tidal wetlands, but inbrackish marshes NH4+was much higher inSpartinaspp. than in neighboring Phragmitesstands. Faunal uses of Phragmitesdominated sites in North America were found to vary bytaxa and in some cases equaled or exceeded use ofother robust emergent plant communities. In light ofthese findings, we make recommendations for futureresearch.

biomass biogeochemistry nontidal marsh Spartina species richness tidal marsh Typha wildlife habitat 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Able, K.W. in press. Measures of juvenile fish habitat quality from a National Estuarine Research Reserve. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22 (Bethesda, MD).Google Scholar
  2. Ahearn-Meyerson, L. and Vogt, K.A. 1997. Considerations for restoring structure, function, and diversity to an ecosystem colonized by invasive plants: A Phragmites case study. In: MacDonald, K. and Weinman, F. (eds.), Wetland and Riparian Restoration: Taking a Broader View. Contributed papers and selected abstracts. pp. 257–258. Society for Ecological Restoration International conference, Seattle Washington.Google Scholar
  3. Ailstock, M.S., Suman, T.W. and Williams, D.H. 1990. Environmental impacts, treatment methodologies and management criteria for establishment of a statewide policy for the control of the marsh plant Phragmites: Year 2. Environmental Center, Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, MD. Unpub. report. 54 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Amsberry, L. 1997. Mechanisms of invasion of Phragmites australis into salt marshes: the importance of clonal integration. Unpub. B.S. Thesis, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 33 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, B.W., Ohmart, R.D., Meents, J.K. and Hunter, W.C. 1984. Avian use of marshes on the Lower Colorado River. In: Warner, R.E. and Hendrix, K.M. (eds.), California Riparian Systems; Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. pp. 598–604. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong, J. and Armstrong, W. 1988. Phragmites australis - A preliminary study of soil-oxidizing sites and internal gas transport pathways. New Phytologist 108: 373–382.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, L.J. 1938. The Blue-Winged Teal; Its Ecology and Management. Collegiate Press, Ames, Iowa. 144 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Benoit, L.K. and Askins, R.A. 1999. Impact of the Spread of Phragmites on the distribution of birds in Connecticut Tidal Marshes. Wetlands 19: 194–208.Google Scholar
  9. Berthold, P., Kaiser, A., Querner, U. and Schlenker, R. 1993. Analysis of trapping figures at Mettnau Station S. Germany with respect to the population development of small birds. A 20 years summary. 34th Report of the MRI-program. Journal of Ornithology 134: 283–299.Google Scholar
  10. Bertness, M.D. 1991. Zonation of Spartina patens and Spartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72: 138–148.Google Scholar
  11. Bongiorno, S.F., Trautman, J.R., Steinke, T.J., Kawa-Raymond, S. and Warner, D. 1984. A study of restoration in Pine Creek salt marsh, Fairfield, Connecticut. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation, Hillsborough Community College Institute of Florida Studies. pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
  12. Boone, J., Furbish, E. and Turner, K. 1987. Control of Phragmites communis: results of burning, cutting and covering with plastic in a North Carolina salt marsh. Technical Report No. 41, Athens, National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit.Google Scholar
  13. Bowden, W.B. 1987. The biogeochemistry of nitrogen in freshwater wetlands. Biogeochemistry 4: 313–348.Google Scholar
  14. Brawley, A.H. 1995 Birds of Connecticut's tidal wetlands: Relating patterns of use to environmental conditions. Unpub. M.A. thesis, Connecticut College, New London. 87 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Buchsbaum, R. 1997. Return of the native or what? Sanctuary 36(3): 12–15.Google Scholar
  16. Buck, E.L. 1995 Selected environmental factors and the spread of Phragmites australis. Unpub. Honors Thesis. New London, Connecticut College. 67 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Buckley, E.H. and Ristich, S.S. 1977. Rooted vegetation of the estuary. In:Weinstein, L.H. (ed.), An Atlas of the Biologic Resources of the Hudson Estuary. pp. 10–33. Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Yonkers, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Burger, J. 1985. Habitat selection in temperate marsh-nesting birds. In: Cody, M.L. (ed.), Habitat Selection in Birds. pp. 253–281. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Buttery, B.R. and Lambert, J.M. 1965. Competition between Glyceria maxima and Phragmites communis in the region of Surlingham Broad. Journal of Ecology 53: 163–181.Google Scholar
  20. Cadman, M.D., Eagles, P.F.J. and Helleiner, F.M. 1987. Atlas of breeding birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Chambers, R.M. 1997. Porewater chemistry associated with Phragmites and Spartina in a Connecticut tidal marsh. Wetlands 17: 360–367.Google Scholar
  22. Chambers, R.M., Meyerson, L.A. and Saltonstall, K. 1999. Expansion of Phragmites australis into tidal wetlands of North America. Aquatic Botany 64: 261–273.Google Scholar
  23. Chambers, R.M., T.J. Mozdzer and J.C. Ambrose. 1999. Effects of salinity and sulfide on the distribution of Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in a tidal saltmarsh. Aquatic Botany 62: 161–169.Google Scholar
  24. Clark, J.S. 1986. Late-Holocene vegetation and coastal processes at a Long Island Sound tidal marsh. Journal of Ecology 74: 561–578.Google Scholar
  25. Clarkson, R.W. and deVos, J.C. 1986. The bullfrog, Rana catesbiana Shaw, in the lower Colorado River, Arizona-California. Journal of Herpetology 20: 42–49.Google Scholar
  26. Cross, D.H. and Fleming, K.L. 1989. Control of Phragmites or common reed. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 5 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Dacey, J.W.H. and Howes, B.L. 1984. Water uptake by roots controls water table movement and sediment oxidation in short Spartina marsh. Science 224: 487–489.Google Scholar
  28. Daiber, F.C. 1982. Animals of the Tidal Marsh. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 442 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Davis, A.N. and Briggs, T.L. 1986. Dispersion patterns of aerial shoots of the common marsh reed Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Rhodora 88: 325–330.Google Scholar
  30. Eggers, S.D. and Reed, T.L. 1987. Wetland plants and plant communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.Google Scholar
  31. Farnsworth, E. and Meyerson, L. submitted. Species composition and inter-annual dynamics of a freshwater tidal plant community following removal of the invasive grass, Phragmites australis: a four-year study. Biological Invasions.Google Scholar
  32. Fell, P.E., Weissbach, S.P., Zuckerman, B. and Fell, S.P. 1996. Macroinvertebrates in Phragmites-dominated and Phragmites-free marsh regions at Chapman Pond and utilization by fish of tidal creeks situated along the salinity gradient of the lower Connecticut River system. Unpub. Report, Connecticut College, New London. 17 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Fell, P.E., Weissbach, S.P., Jones, D.A., Fallon, M.A., Zeppieri, J.A., Faison, E.K., Lennon, K.A., Newberry, K.J. and Reddington, L.K. 1998. Does invasion of oligohaline tidal marshes by reed grass, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. affect the availability of prey resources for the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 222: 59–77. Fertik, R.A. 1995 Distribution of dominant angiosperms on the tidelands of the lower Connecticut River estuary in relation to salinity and hydroperiod. Unpub. report, New London, Connecticut College. 17 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Fitter, A. 1997. Nutrient Acquisition. In: Crawley, M.J. (ed.), Plant Ecology, 2nd edition. pp. 51–72, Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Galinato, M.I. and van der Valk, A.G. 1986. Seed germination traits of annuals and emergents recruited during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canad. Aquatic Botany 26: 89–102.Google Scholar
  36. Gorham, E. and Pearsall, W.H. 1956. Production Ecology III. Shoot production in Phragmites in relation to habitat. Oikos 7: 206–214.Google Scholar
  37. Gosselink, J.G. and Turner, R.E. 1978. The role of hydrology in freshwater wetland ecosystems. In: Good, R.E., Whigham, D.F. and Simpson, R.L. (eds.), Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. pp. 63–78. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  38. Harris, S.W. and Marshall, W.H. 1960. Experimental germination of seed and establishment of seedlings of Phragmites communis. Ecology 4: 395.Google Scholar
  39. Harrison, E.Z. and Bloom, A.L. 1977. Sedimentation rates on tidal salt marshes in Connecticut. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 47: 1484–1490.Google Scholar
  40. Haslam, S.M. 1970. The performance of Phragmites communis Trin. in relation to water supply. Annals of Botany (Lond.) 34: 867–877.Google Scholar
  41. Haslam, S.M. 1972. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Phragmites communis Trin. Journal of Ecology 60: 585–610.Google Scholar
  42. Hellings, S.E. and Gallagher, J.L. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. Journal of Applied Ecology 59: 41–49.Google Scholar
  43. Hopkinson, C.S. and Gosselink, J.G. 1978. Aboveground production of seven marsh plant species in coastal Louisiana. Ecology 59: 760–769.Google Scholar
  44. Howard, R., Rhodes, D.G. and Simmers, J.W. 1978. A review of the biology and potential control techniques for Phragmites australis. Unpub. report prepared for the Dredged Material Research Program. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 80 pp.Google Scholar
  45. Hudson, K. 1994. American robins nesting in Phragmites. Bird Observer 22: 153–155.Google Scholar
  46. Kiviat, E. 1987. Common reed (Phragmites australis). In: Decker, D. and Enck, J. (eds.), Exotic Plants with Identified Detrimental Impacts on Wildlife Habitats in New York. pp. 22–30. New York Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Annandale, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Kiviat, E. 1994. Reed, sometimes a weed. News from Hudsonia 10:4–6.Google Scholar
  48. Krause, L.H., Rietsma, C. and Kiviat, E. 1997. Terrestrial insects associated with Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia, and Lythrum salicaria in a Hudson River tidal marsh. In: Nieder, W.C. and Waldman, J.R. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program 1996. pp. V-1–V-35, Hudson River Foundation and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve.Google Scholar
  49. Kunstler, D.S. No date. Butterflies of Bayswater Point State Park & Dubos Point Park, Rockaway Peninsula, Queens County, New York. Unpub. report to the New York City Audubon Society. 13 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Lanning, F.S. and Eleuterius, L.N. 1985. Silica and ash in tissues of some plants growing in the coastal area of Mississippi USA. Annals of Botany (Lond.) 56: 157–172.Google Scholar
  51. Linthurst, R.A. and Reimold, R.J. 1978. Estimated net aerial primary productivity for selected estuarine angiosperms in Maine, Delaware and Georgia. Ecology 59: 945–955.Google Scholar
  52. Lynch, J.J., O'Neil, T. and Lay, D.W. 1947. Management significance of damage by geese and muskrats to Gulf Coast marshes. Journal of Wildlife Management 11: 5–76.Google Scholar
  53. Marks, M., Lapin, B. and Randall, J. 1994. Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, management, and monitoring. Natural Areas Journal 14: 285–294.Google Scholar
  54. McCormac, J.S. 1994. Lake Erie Protection Fund, Final Report. Project # LEPF-93-04.Google Scholar
  55. Meanley, B. 1993. The Patuxent River wild rice marsh. Privately published. 69 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Metzler, K. and Rozsa, R. 1987. Additional notes on the tidelands of the Connecticut River. Newsletter of the Connecticut Botanical Society 15: 1–6.Google Scholar
  57. Meyerson, L.A. 1997. Competition between Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia in a freshwater marsh ecosystem. Unpub. report to The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter. Middletown, CT, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  58. Meyerson, L.A. 2000. The impact of Phragmites australis on nutrient pools in two Connecticut River freshwater marshes. Final report to the office of long island island sound programs. Connecticut Dep.Google Scholar
  59. Meyerson, L.A., Vogt, K.A. and Chambers, R.M. in press. Linking the success of Phragmites australis to the decoupling of ecosystem nutrient cycles. In:Weinstein, M.P. and Kreeger, D.A. (eds.), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  60. Mitsch, W.J. and Gosselink, J.G. 1993. Wetland. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Rheinhold, New York. 722 pp.Google Scholar
  61. Niering, W.A., Warren, R.S. and Weymouth, C.G. 1977. Our dynamic tidal marshes: Vegetation changes as revealed by peat analysis. Connecticut Arboretum Bulletin 12: 22.Google Scholar
  62. Nijburg, J.W. and H.J. Laanbroek. 1997. The fate of 15N-nitrate in healthy and declining Phragmites australis stands. Microbial Ecology 34: 254–262.Google Scholar
  63. Odum, W.E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 147–176.Google Scholar
  64. Opler, P.A. and Krizek, G.O. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 295 pp.Google Scholar
  65. Orson, R.A., Warren, R.S and Niering, W.A. 1987. Development of a tidal marsh in a New England river valley. Estuaries 10: 20–27.Google Scholar
  66. Otto, S.P.M. Groffman, S.E.G. Findlay and Arreloa, A.E. 1999. Invasive plant species and microbial processes in a tidal freshwater marsh. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 1252–1257.Google Scholar
  67. Phillips, J.D. 1987. Shoreline processes and establishment of Phragmites australis in a coastal plain estuary. Vegetatio 71: 139–144.Google Scholar
  68. Rilling, G.C., Fell, P.E. and Warren, R.S. 1999. Fish use of brackish tidal wetlands on the lower Connecticut River: a comparison of a Phragmites australis-dominated vs. a restored high marsh. Final Report to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.Google Scholar
  69. Roman, C.T. and Daiber, F.C. 1984. Aboveground and belowground primary production dynamics of two Delaware Bay tidal marshes. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 3: 31–41.Google Scholar
  70. Roman, C.T., Niering, W.A. and Warren, R.S. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation changes in response to tidal restrictions. Environmental Management 8: 141–150.Google Scholar
  71. Schneider, K.J. and Pence, D.M. (eds.). 1992. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 403 pp.Google Scholar
  72. Scott, J.A., Shields, O. and Ellis, S.L. 1977. Distribution and biology of plaistocene relict: Ochlodes Yuma (Hesperiidae) Journal of the Lepidoptera Society 31: 17–22.Google Scholar
  73. Seitzinger, S.P., Gardner, W.S. and Spratt, A.K. 1991. The effect of salinity on aquatic sediments: implications for benthic nutrient recycling. Estuaries 14: 167–174.Google Scholar
  74. Sinicrope, T.L., Hine, P.G., Warren, R.S. and Niering, W.A. 1990. Restoration of an impounded salt marsh in New England. Estuaries 13: 25–30.Google Scholar
  75. Sipple, W.S. 1971. The past and present flora and vegetation of the Hackensack Meadows. Bartonia 41: 4–56.Google Scholar
  76. Sorrel, B.K., H. Brix, H. Schierup, and B. Lorenzen. 1997. Die-back of Phragmites australis: influence on the distribution and rate of sediment methanogenesis. Biogeochemistry 36: 173–188.Google Scholar
  77. Stalter, R. and Baden, J. 1994. A twenty-year comparison of vegetation of three abandoned rice fields, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Castanea 59: 69–77.Google Scholar
  78. Templer, P., Findlay, S. and Wigand, C. 1998. Sediment chemistry associated with native and non-native emergent macrophytes of a Hudson River marsh ecosystem. Wetlands 18: 70–78.Google Scholar
  79. Thompson, D.J. and Shay, J.M. 1985. The effects of fire on Phragmites australis in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 1864–1869.Google Scholar
  80. Tscharntke, T. 1992. Fragmentation of Phragmites habitats, minimum viable population size, habitat suitability, and local extinction of moths, midges, flies, aphids, and birds. Conservation Biology 6: 530–535.Google Scholar
  81. Tucker, G.C. 1990. The genera of Arundinoideae (Gramineae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 71: 145–163.Google Scholar
  82. Twedt, D.J. and Crawford, R.D. 1995 Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus). Birds of North America (192): 1–28.Google Scholar
  83. Tyrawski, J.M. 1977. A study of the common reedgrass (Phragmites communis Trin.) in the coastal zone of Delaware. Unpub. M.S. Thesis, Marine Studies, University of Delaware, 164 pp.Google Scholar
  84. Ward, E. 1942. Phragmites management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 7: 294–298.Google Scholar
  85. Whitman, W.R. and Meredith, W.H. 1987. Introduction. In: Proceedings of a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Flyway. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Delaware Coastal Management Program. pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  86. Wijte, H.B.M. and Gallagher, J.L. 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: 1337–1342.Google Scholar
  87. Windham, L. 1995 Effects of Phragmites australis invasion on aboveground biomass and soil properties in brackish tidal marsh of the Mullica River, New Jersey. Unpub. M.S. thesis. Rutgers, New Brunswick, NJ. 61 pp.Google Scholar
  88. Windham, L. and Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1997. Effects of Phragmites australis invasion on dissolved nitrogen retention in brackish tidal marsh of the eastern U.S. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 78(4 supp): 208.Google Scholar
  89. Windham, L. and Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1998. Effects of Phragmites australis invasions on nitrogen cycling in brackish tidal marsh of the eastern U.S. In: Bulletin of the Conference on Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, Vineland, New Jersey. pp. 46.Google Scholar
  90. Winogrond, H. and Kiviat, E. 1997. Invasions of Phragmites australis in the tidal marshes of the Hudson River. In: Nieder, W.C. and Waldman, J.R. (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program 1996. pp. VI-1–VI-29, Hudson River Foundation and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve.Google Scholar
  91. Yasukawa, K. and Searcy, W.A. 1995 Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Birds of North America (184): 1–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • L.A. Meyerson
    • 1
  • K. Saltonstall
    • 2
  • L. Windham
    • 3
  • E. Kiviat
    • 4
  • S. Findlay
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyYale UniversityNew HavenU.S.A.
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural ResourcesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickU.S.A
  4. 4.Hudsonia, Ltd., Bard CollegeAnnandaleU.S.A
  5. 5.Institute of Ecosystem StudiesMillbrookU.S.A

Personalised recommendations