Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
|
|
 |
| Softstem bulrush in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Image by Troy Evans, Bugwood.org. |
Introductory
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Snyder, S. A. 1993. Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/graminoid/schtan/all.html [].
Revisions:
Images were added on 19 October 2018.
ABBREVIATION:
SCHTAB
SYNONYMS:
Scirpus lacustris L. subsp. creber (Fernald) T. Koyama
Scirpus lacustris L. subsp. glaucus (Rchb.) Hartm.
Scirpus lacustris L. subsp. validus (Vahl) T. Koyama [35]
Scirpus validus Vahl [16]
NRCS PLANT CODE:
SCTA2
COMMON NAMES:
softstem bulrush
soft-stem bulrush
soft-stem clubrush
great bulrush
giant bulrush
bullwhip
common bulrush
TAXONOMY:
The scientific name of softstem bulrush is Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
(K.C. Gmel.) Palla (Cyperaceae) [35,36].
LIFE FORM:
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
No special status
OTHER STATUS:
NO ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION:
Softstem bulrush occurs throughout North America from central Alaska
south to Mexico, east to the Maritime Provinces of Canada, and south
through Florida. It does not occur through central and southern
California [8]. It is native on the Hawaiian islands of Niihau, Oahu,
Molokai, and Hawaii [34].
 |
| Distribution of softstem bulrush. Map courtesy of USDA, NRCS. 2018. The PLANTS Database.
National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. [2018, October 19] [30]. |
ECOSYSTEMS:
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands
STATES:
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA
HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD
MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ
NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC
SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
AB BC MB NB NF NT NS ON PE PQ
SK YT MEXICO
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS:
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS:
K025 Alder - ash forest
K049 Tule marshes
K063 Foothills prairie
K072 Sea oats prairie
K073 Northern cordgrass prairie
K075 Nebraska Sandhills prairie
K078 Southern cordgrass prairie
K080 Marl - everglades
K092 Everglades
K098 Northern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES:
63 Cottonwood
235 Cottonwood - willow
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES:
Softstem bulrush is a dominant in the following classification type:
Landscape classification and plant successional trends in the
Peace-Athabasca Delta [7]
Some species associated with softstem bulrush are smartweed (Polygonum
spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), common cattail, reed (Phragmites spp.), water
hemlock (Circuta maculata), spikerush (Eleocharis calva), fowl
mannagrass (Glyceria striata), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia
caespitosa), beggartick (Bidens spp.), narrowlieaf burreed (Sparganium
eurycarpum), common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), sego pondweed
(Potamogeton pectinatus), and nodding waternymph (Najas flexilis)
[4,6,19].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE:
The seeds of softstem bulrush are eaten by waterfowl and considered a
good to excellent food source in South Dakota [3,9].
PALATABILITY:
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE:
NO-ENTRY
COVER VALUE:
Softstem bulrush provides good cover for waterfowl, especially in
conjunction with common cattail (Typha latifolia) [13].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Softstem bulrush is used in wetland restoration and is best planted
vegetatively because it can triple its biomass in one growing season
[20]. It is also used to reduce pollutant loads carried by storm water
runoff in urban wetlands [25].
OTHER USES AND VALUES:
Roots of softstem bulrush can be ground into flour or eaten whole.
Syrup can be extracted from them [8].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Livestock grazing in wetlands can reduce softstem bulrush [13].
Softstem bulrush will establish from the seedbank following periodic
draining and reflooding of marshes [6,22]. However, prolonged draining
and reflooding can reduce softstem bulrush stands [18]. In a Minnesota
marsh, early to mid-June drawdowns favored softstem bulrush stands in
the first 2 years. After the third-year drawdonw, bulrush began to
decrease in water depths greater than 15 inches (38 cm). Eventually it
was eradicated from all areas reflooded annually [18].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Softstem bulrush is a tall, leafless marsh plant 1.5 to 9 feet (0.5-3
m) high and 0.12 to 0.8 inches (0.3-2 cm) thick with scaly, stout,
horizontal rhizomes [11]. The stems are obscurely three-sided and
spongy [17]. Spikes occur near the stem tips in branched clusters [8].
The fruit is an achene [11].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM:
Geophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Softstem bulrush reproduces by both rhizomes and seeds [11,17]. It
reproduces well from seed stored in the seedbank [18]. Soil-stored
seed can remain viable for as long as 20 years [31]. In the lab, seed
viability in dry storage is more than 2 years [14].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Softstem bulrush grows in marshes, along lake and stream shores, and in
wet meadows. It grows in fresh or brackish water [5,16,23]. Soils are
usually poorly-drained [5], or continually saturated [12]. Softstem
bulrush grows in silty or peaty soils [18]. Under greenhouse conditions
softstem bulrush produced more aboveground biomass in silty clay soils
than in clay or sand alone [1]. Belowground biomass was equal in silty
clays and clays, and lower in sandy soils. Softstem bulrush seems to
grow better in saline conditions than in fresh water, and it tolerates a
wide range of salinity [32].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Softstem bulrush is a perennial [17] and is a dominant emergent in the
northern plains and prairie states [19]. It is replaced by cattail
(Typha spp.) in continuously flooded marshes following drawdown [18].
Softstem bulrush is found in the third sere of succession in Wisconsin
marshes, preceded by submerged and floating plant stages and followed by
sedge meadows, shrubs, and trees [12].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Because of the wide distribution of softstem bulrush, its growing
seasons varies with latitude. In the northeast softstem bulrush
flowers from July through August [23]. Flowering lasts from 5 to 6
months in wetland prairies of Nebraska [28]. Fernald [11] reported
fruits generally ripening from June through September.
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS:
Softstem bulrush sprouts from rhizomes following fire [27].
FIRE REGIMES:
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY:
Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT:
Fire topkills softstem bulrush stands [13] and reduces shoot mass of
Schoenoplectus species [27].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT:
The effects of fire on wetland plants after drawdowns in Utah's Great
Salt Lake Marsh were studied [27]. On burned sites new shoots had a
lower biomass per inch of length than shoots on unburned sites.
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:
Softstem bulrush sprouts from rhizomes following fire [27].
Fire increases protein content of Schoenoplectus acutus, a closely related
species [33]. Wetland vertebrates may select certain marsh plant
species due to protein increases following fire [27].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE:
Prescribed fires were lit in early September following April drawdowns
in the Great Salt Lake Marsh [27]. No distinction was made between S.
tabernaemontani and Schoenoplectus acutus in this study. Both were
referred to as "Scirpus lacustris". Burned and unburned sites were
reflooded 1 week following fire. Stands of bulrush on burned sites
were similar to those on unburned sites during the first year. Bulrush
began sprouting immediately following fire, growing to a height of 1.3
feet (0.4 m) before the first winter. Production did not differ between
sites.
Waterfowl and muskrats can reduce softstem bulrush through overgrazing,
especially following fire [27].
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
No entry
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani
REFERENCES:
1. Barko, John W.; Smart, R. Michael. 1978. The growth and biomass
distribution of two emergent freshwater plants, Cyperus esculentus and
Scirpus validus, on different sediments. Aquatic Botany. 5(2): 109-117.
[21915]
2. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
3. Chamberlain, J. L. 1959. Gulf Coast marsh vegetation as food of
wintering waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management. 23(1): 97-102.
[14535]
4. Clambey, Gary K.; Landers, Roger Q. 1978. A survey of wetland vegetation
in north-central Iowa. In: Glenn-Lewin, David C.; Landers, Roger Q.,
Jr., eds. Proceedings, 5th Midwest prairie conference; 1976 August
22-24; Ames, IA. Ames, IA: Iowa State University: 32-35. [3304]
5. Cooper, James A. 1978. The history and breeding biology of the Canada
geese of Marshy Point, Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs No. 61. Washington,
DC: The Wildlife Society. 87 p. [18122]
6. Currier, P. J.; Davis, C. B.; Vander Valk, A. G. 1978. A vegetation
analysis of a wetland prairie marsh in northern Iowa. In: Glenn-Lewin,
David C.; Landers, Roger Q., Jr., eds. Proceedings, 5th Midwest prairie
conference; 1976 August 22-24; Ames, IA. Ames, IA: Iowa State
University: 65-69. [3346]
7. Dirschl, German J.; Dabbs, Don L.; Gentle, Garry C. 1974. Landscape
classification and plant successional trends in the Peace-Athabasca
Delta. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series 30. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Wildlife Service. 33 p. [6177]
8. Elias, Thomas S.; Dykeman, Peter A. 1982. Field guide to North American
edible wild plants. [Place of publication unknown]: Outdoor Life Books.
286 p. [21103]
9. Evans, Keith E.; Kerbs, Roger R. 1977. Avian use of livestock watering
ponds in western South Dakota. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-35. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 11 p. [19330]
10. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
11. Fernald, Merritt Lyndon. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. [Corrections
supplied by R. C. Rollins]. Portland, OR: Dioscorides Press. 1632 p.
(Dudley, Theodore R., gen. ed.; Biosystematics, Floristic & Phylogeny
Series; vol. 2). [14935]
12. Frolik, A. L. 1941. Vegetation on the peat lands of Dane County,
Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 11(1): 117-140. [16805]
13. Furniss, O. C. 1938. The 1937 waterfowl season in the Prince Albert
District, central Saskatchewan. Wilson Bulletin. 50: 17-27. [14636]
14. Garbisch, Edgar W.; McIninch, Suzanne. 1992. Seed information for
wetland plant species of the northeast United States. Restoration &
Management Notes. 10(1): 85-86. [19412]
15. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
16. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New
York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
17. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of
southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. Athens, GA: The University
of Georgia Press. 712 p. [16906]
18. Harris, Stanley W.; Marshall, William H. 1963. Ecology of water-level
manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology. 44(2): 331-343. [17808]
19. Kantrud, Harold A.; Millar, John B.; van der Valk, A. G. 1989.
Vegetation of wetlands of the prairie pothole region. In: van der Valk,
Arnold, ed. Northern prairie wetlands. Ames, IA: Iowa State University
Press: 132-187. [15217]
20. Kerans, Karen. 1990. Country Wetlands Nursery Ltd. Restoration &
Management Notes. 8(1): 29-31. [14513]
21. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
22. Lehto, Bruce; Murphy, Jeff. 1989. Effects of drawdown and water
management on a seriously eroded marsh. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Biological Report. 89(22): 164-169. [17337]
23. Magee, Dennis W. 1981. Freshwater wetlands: A guide to common indicator
plants of the Northeast. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
245 p. [14824]
24. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
25. Schueler, Tom; Galli, John. 1990. Pond/marsh detention system key to
urban stream restoration. Restoration and Management. 8(2): 115-116.
[15042]
26. Shay, Jennifer M.; Macaulay, A. J.; Frego, K. A. 1988. A morphological
comparison of Scirpus acutus and S. validus in southern Manitoba.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 66(11): 2331-2337. [21916]
27. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A. 1985. Fire and herbivory in a Great
Salt Lake marsh. Ecology. 66(1): 259-265. [7619]
28. Steiger, T. L. 1930. Structure of prairie vegetation. Ecology. 11(1):
170-217. [3777]
29. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. 2018. PLANTS Database, [Online]. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Producer).
Available: https://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
31. Wienhold, C. E.; van der Valk, A. G. 1989. The impact of duration of
drainage on the seed banks of northern prairie wetlands. Canadian
Journal of Botany. 67(6): 1878-1884. [13799]
32. Latham, Pamela J.; Pearlstine, Leonard G.; Kitchens, Wiley M. 1991.
Spatial distributions of the softstem bulrush, Scirpus validus, across a
salinity gradient. Estuaries. 14(2): 192-198. [18172]
33. Smith, Loren M.; Kadlec, John A; Fonnesbeck, Paul V. 1984. Effects of
prescribed burning on nutritive quality of marsh plants in Utah. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 48(1): 285-288. [8457]
34. St. John, Harold. 1973. List and summary of the flowering plants in the
Hawaiian islands. Hong Kong: Cathay Press Limited. 519 p. [25354]
35. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North
American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina
Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001,
January 16]. [38380]
36. Flora of North America Association. 2009. Flora of North America:
The flora, [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available:
http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
FEIS Home Page
