, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 964–975 | Cite as

Patterns of environmental change associated withTypha xglauca invasion in a Great Lakes coastal wetland

  • Nancy C. Tuchman
  • Daniel J. Larkin
  • Pamela Geddes
  • Radka Wildova
  • KathiJo Jankowski
  • Deborah E. Goldberg


Typha x glauca (hybrid cattail) is an aggressive invader of wetlands in the upper Midwest, USA. There is widespread concern about declines in plant diversity followingTypha invasion. However, relatively little is known about howTypha alters habitat characteristics, i.e., its potential to act as an “ecosystem engineer”. Over five years, we measured physical, chemical, and plant community changes associated withTypha invasion in a Lake Huron wetland in northern lower Michigan. We compared uninvaded areas with patches varying in invasion intensity. Our study was observational, but we used statistical inference to try to separate effects ofTypha and confounding variables, particularly water depth. We used space-for-time substitution to investigate whetherTypha-associated changes increased over time, as predicted ifTypha invasion was in part a cause (not only a consequence) of abiotic changes. Relative to uninvaded areas,Typha-invaded areas differed in plant-community composition and had lower species richness, higher litter mass, and higher soil organic matter and nutrient concentrations (all P < 0.001). Overall,Typha invasion appeared to displace native species and enrich wetland soils. These changes could benefitTypha at the expense of native species, potentially generating plant-soil feedbacks that pose special challenges for wetland management and restoration.

Key Words

cattail invasive species soil nitrogen soil organic matter 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Alvarez, J. A. and E. Becares. 2006. Seasonal decomposition ofTypha latifolia in a free-water surface constructed wetland. Ecological Engineering 28: 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, M. E. and J. H. Cushman. 2002. Community-level consequences of a plant invasion: effects on three habitats in coastal California. Ecological Applications 12: 1434–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angeloni, N. L., K. J. Jankowski, N. C. Tuchman, and J. J. Kelly. 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: 86–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. APHA. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Bedford, B. L., M. R. Walbridge, and A. Aldous. 1999. Patterns in nutrient availability and plant diversity of temperate North American wetlands. Ecology 80: 2151–69.Google Scholar
  6. Boers, A. M., R. L. D. Veltman, and J. B. Zedler. 2007.Typha x glauca dominance and extended hydroperiod constrain restoration of wetland diversity. Ecological Engineering 29: 232–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2006. Trends of change in composition and structure of Chicago region wetland vegetation. Chicago Wilderness Journal 4: 25–34.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, M. L., C. M. D’Antonio, D. M. Richardson, J. B. Grace, J. E. Keeley, J. M. DiTomaso, R. J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, and D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience 54: 677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway, R. M. and J. L. Maron. 2006. What have exotic plant invasions taught us over the past 20 years? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 369–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbin, J. D. and C. M. D’Antonio. 2004. Effects of exotic species on soil nitrogen cycling: implications for restoration. Weed Technology 18: 1464–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craft, C., K. Krull, and S. Graham. 2007. Ecological indicators of nutrient enrichment, freshwater wetlands, Midwestern United States (US). Ecological Indicators 7: 733–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dethier, M. N. and S. D. Hacker. 2005. Physical factors vs. biotic resistance in controlling the invasion of an estuarine marsh grass. Ecological Applications 15: 1273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6: 503–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrer, E. and D. Goldberg. 2009. Litter drives ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecological Applications 19: 398–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Findlay, S. E. G., S. Dye, and K. A. Kuehn. 2002. Microbial growth and nitrogen retention in litter ofPhragmites australis compared toTypha angustifolia. Wetlands 22: 616–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freyman, M. J. 2008. The effect of litter accumulation of the invasive cattailTypha x glauca on a Great Lakes coastal marsh. Master’s Thesis. Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Frieswyk, C. B., C. A. Johnston, and J. B. Zedler. 2007. Identifying and characterizing dominant plants as an indicator of community condition. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33: 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galatowitsch, S. M., N. O. Anderson, and P. D. Ascher. 1999. Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19: 733–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, E. K. and S. M. Galatowitsch. 2001. Differences in wetland plant community establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinacea andTypha x glauca). Canadian Journal of Botany 79: 170–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hejda, M. and P. Pyšek. 2006. What is the impact ofImpatiens glandulifera on species diversity of invaded riparian vegetation? Biological Conservation 132: 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henebry, M., J. Cairns, C. Schwintzer, and W. Yongue. 1981. A comparison of vascular vegetation and protozoan communities in some freshwater wetlands of Northern Lower Michigan. Hydrobiologia 83: 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herr-Turoff, A. and J. B. Zedler. 2005. Does wet prairie vegetation retain more nitrogen with or withoutPhalaris arundinacea invasion? Plant and Soil 277: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jankowski, K. J. 2006. The effects of an invasive cattail (Typha x glauca) on nitrogen cycling in a Great Lakes coastal marsh. Master’s Thesis. Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Kercher, S. M. and J. B. Zedler. 2004. Multiple disturbances accelerate invasion of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in a mesocosm study. Oecologia 138: 455–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. MacDougall, A. S. and R. Turkington. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86: 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  27. McDonald, M. E. 1955. Cause and effects of a die-off of emergent vegetation. Journal of Wildlife Management 19: 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4. Soil Testing Div. Publ. 1-53. North Carolina Dept. Agriculture, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  29. NADP. 2007. National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NRSP-3). NADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, P. Legendre, R. O’Hara, M. Henry, and H. Stevens. 2006. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.8-7 (, Scholar
  31. Pyšek, P. and A. Pyšek. 1995. Invasion byHeracleum mantegazzianum in different habitats in the Czech Republic. Journal of Vegetation Science 6: 711–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Development Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria ( Scholar
  33. Reed, J. and B. Porter. 1988. National list of vascular plant species that occur in wetlands: National summary. Biological Report 88, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Rothman, E. and V. Bouchard. 2007. Regulation of carbon processes by macrophyte species in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Wetlands 27: 1134–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, S. 1987.Typha: its taxonomy and the ecological significance of hybrids. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 27: 129–38.Google Scholar
  36. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Soil Survey of Cheboygan County, Michigan. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  37. SPSS Inc. 2001. SPSS Base 11.0 for Windows User’s Guide. 1st edition. Prentice Hall., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Suding, K. N., K. L. Gross, and G. R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. terBraak, C. J. F. and P. Šmilauer. 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User’s Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Tiner, R. W. 1991. The concept of a hydrophyte for wetland identification. Bioscience 41: 236–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. US EPA. 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/ R-03/002, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  42. US EPA. 2007. STORET. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA ( Scholar
  43. Vitousek, P. and L. Walker. 1989. Biological invasion byMyrica faya in Hawai’i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59: 247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Windham, L. and L. A. Meyerson. 2003. Effects of common reed (Phragmites australis) expansions on nitrogen dynamics of tidal marshes of the northeastern US. Estuaries 26: 452–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woo, I. and J. B. Zedler. 2002. Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasiveTypha x glauca? Wetlands 22: 509–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yee, T. W. and N. D. Mitchell. 1991. Generalized additive models in plant ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science 2: 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zedler, J. B. and S. Kercher. 2004. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 23: 431–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy C. Tuchman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel J. Larkin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pamela Geddes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Radka Wildova
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • KathiJo Jankowski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Deborah E. Goldberg
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Michigan Biological StationPellstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Division of Plant Science and ConservationGlencoeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrůhoniceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations