Index of Species Information
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
Introductory
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Snyder, S. A. 1993. Typha angustifolia. 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/typang/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
TYPANG
SYNONYMS :
NO-ENTRY
SCS PLANT CODE :
TYAN
COMMON NAMES :
narrowleaf cattail
narrow-leaved cattail
narrow-leaf cattail
narrowleaved cattail
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for narrowleaf cattail is
Typha angustifolia L. in the family Typhaceae [12].
Typha angustifolia hybridizes with T. latifolia to form T. × glauca
Godron. [14].
LIFE FORM :
Graminoid
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Narrowleaf cattail occurs from Nova Scotia south through parts of New
England along the coast to southern Florida. It occurs in the Midwest
south to southeastern Texas. Scattered populations are found throughout
Nebraska and Wyoming, parts of the Intermountain West, and along the
Pacific Northwest coast into central California [10].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES39 Prairie
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
STATES :
AL AR CA CT DE FL GA IL IN IA
KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT
NE NH NJ NY NC OH OR PA RI SC
TN TX UT VT VA WV WI WY MB NB
NS ON PQ
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
5 Columbia Plateau
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
14 Great Plains
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K049 Tule marshes
K072 Sea oats prairie
K073 Northern cordgrass prairie
K074 Bluestem prairie
K092 Everglades
SAF COVER TYPES :
63 Cottonwood
235 Cottonwood - willow
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Narrowleaf cattail is listed as a riparian dominance type in the
following publication:
Riparian dominance types of Montana [31]
Some associates of narrowleaf cattail include sedges (Carex spp.),
bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sphagnum mosses
(Sphagnum ssp.), lichens (Cladonia spp.), kalmia (Kalmia spp.), foxtail
barley (Critestion jubatum), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae),
oakleaf goosefoot (Chenopodium glaucum), curled dock (Rumex crispus),
panicgrass (Panicum spp.), cottonsedge (Eriophorum spissum), buttonbush
(Cephalanthus occidentalis), spiraea (Spiraea spp.), blueberries
(Vaccinium spp.), viburnum (Viburnum spp.), chufa flatsedge (Cyperus
esculentus), and dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa) [8,28].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Narrowleaf cattail is eaten by waterfowl and muskrats [24,27].
Muskrats also construct their lodges with cattail, and blackbirds use
cattail for perches [31]. Extensive monotypic stands of cattail are
usually poor habitat for wildlife [1].
PALATABILITY :
NO-ENTRY
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Food values for leaf litter of the narrowleaf cattail hybrid, T.
× glauca, have been listed [22]:
type time %nitrogen %phosphorus %ash
green early July 2.77 0.29 6.55
senesced early Feb. 0.63 0.05 3.89
COVER VALUE :
Narrowleaf cattail provides important cover for muskrats and a
variety of waterfowl [4,6,27]. White-tailed deer use cattail for cover
[31].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Narrowleaf cattail is used in prairie wetland restoration [17]. It
is used to create wetlands for mitigating the effects of wastewater
treatment plants and landfills [9]. A shoreline restoration project to
provide cover for largemouth bass and other fish determined that rhizome
transplants have better survivorship than transplanted greenhouse stock [7].
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Rhizomes are eaten whole or ground into flour. Shoots, seeds, flowers,
pollen, and stems are also eaten. Stems and leaves are woven into
baskets and rope or used in roofing, bedding, and paper manufacturing
[10,15]. Many other uses for narrowleaf cattail have been documented
[21].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Although narrowleaf cattail is useful in wetland restoration
projects, without control it will form dense stands that eventually
outcompete other valuable wildlife food and cover species [4]. It can
be controlled with herbicides and through marsh drawdowns or by flooding
over freshly cut stubble to reduce oxygen to the rhizomes [15].
A study of the effects of cutting cattail, then flooding the area,
showed that stem densities were reduced by 89 percent the first year.
When cut a second time, densities were reduced by 99 percent. No
fruiting heads or seed germination occurred following cutting and
flooding [1].
Draining a New Brunswick marsh caused a 36 percent increase in
narrowleaf cattail cover and a 50 percent increase in stem density.
However, plant height and basal diameter were reduced by 16.54 percent
and 7.14, respectively [30].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Narrowleaf cattail is an erect, rhizomatous perennial that grows 3 to
6 feet (1-2 m) tall [15]. Its lateral rhizomes, produced at the leaf
base, can grow up to 27.6 inches (70 cm) long and 0.8 to 1.6 inches (2-4
cm) in diameter [15]. Its leaves are 2 to 5 feet (0.6-1.5 m) long, very
narrow, and flattened [10,12]. Flowers grow on erect stalks, and the
fruits are cigar-shaped and 2 to 6 inches (5-15 cm) long. Fruits contain
soft, downy seeds [10].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Helophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Cattails reproduce by seed and rhizomes. Their primary means of
colonizing is by seed, and once established, colonies are maintained by
vegetative reproduction [16]. Seeds are wind pollinated and require
moisture, but not oxygen for germination [15]. Laboratory studies have
shown that seeds germinate best in water 1 inch (2.5 cm) deep, but can
germinate in water as deep as 16 inches (40 cm) [4]. In the field seed
germination usually occurs following exposure of mudflats.
Narrowleaf cattail was found in wetland seedbanks that had been
drained for more than 70 years [32].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
Narrowleaf cattail grows in marshes, wet meadows, fens, estuaries,
bogs, ditches, and along lake shores. It is tolerant of saline
environments [15,31]. Where T. angustifolia and T. latifolia occur
together, T. angustifolia usually colonizes the deeper waters (31.5 in.
[80 cm] or more) [16].
In Utah, narrowleaf cattail occurs in peaty soils of salt marshes and
colonizes deep sloughs and sloping marsh perimeters [5].
In Wisconsin, water levels seem to be the most important factor affecting
cattail occurrence and establishment [4]. Typha spp. grow best under
stable moisture conditions, saturated soil, and water up to 1.5 feet
(45 cm) deep. Narrowleaf cattail can grow in water as deep as 2.5
feet (76 cm) [4]. After establishment, it can tolerate fluctuating
water levels including periods of drought and deep flooding. In
Wisconsin cattail species usually grow in soils that are fertile and
nutrient rich [4]. Narrowleaf cattail height growth is best in hot
temperatures but does not seem to be adversely affected by extreme cold [4].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
Narrowleaf cattail is considered an early to mid-seral species and a
dominant in disturbed wetlands [15]. In the absence of disturbance,
narrowleaf cattail dominates marshes in dense, monotypic stands [18].
Under these conditions productivity is lowered because of litter
buildup, and narrowleaf cattail outcompetes other species.
Narrowleaf cattail replaces cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in marshes
where coastal wetlands are diked or tidally restricted [2,23].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Leaves emerge in the spring, flowering is initiated in early to
mid-summer, and the greatest clonal growth occurs in the fall [15].
Under good conditions, seeds germinate from May to September [4].
Aerial shoot growth continues into November or until the first freeze
when plants go dormant [20]. Development times in a Wisconsin marsh
were: April: aerial shoot sprout, new rhizome formation, leaves; May:
new shoots; June: spikes formed; July: basal shoots and flower head
development; August through September: maturation of flower head [4].
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Cattail rhizomes sprout following fire [4].
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: Typha angustifolia
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Burning top-kills narrowleaf cattail and reduces stem density [1].
Fires that burn into the peat layer can kill cattail [4].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
The effects of fire on the narrowleaf cattail hybrid T.
× glauca were determined for a New Brunswick marsh. The marsh was divided into two
sections, each containing four blocks of four plots. In each section one
block was burned in early and mid-June, one was burned in early and
mid-July, and one was burned in mid-August and mid-September.
Vegetation was measured the third postfire year. Following each fire,
plots were either drained or flooded. On the drained sites T.
× glauca cover, density, and height were least on the plots burned in July.
Other burned plots did not differ significantly from the control. On
the flooded sites July-burned plots had greater T. × glauca cover than
control plots. Other burned plots did not differ significantly from the
control [30].
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
Narrowleaf cattail will sprout following fire if rhizomes are not
consumed [1,4].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Fire can be used to reduce aboveground debris, opening up stands for
nesting waterfowl. Burning in winter when rhizomes are buried in ice or
in frozen soil usually will not kill cattail. If the objective is to
create more open stands for wildlife, burning should be conducted in
spring following a relatively dry winter, when the marsh is dry [4].
Fire has been used to provide openings in cattail (Typha spp.) marshes
for mallard foraging. In the St Clair Wildlife Refuge, Ontario, mallards
used openings that were created by winter burning followed by spring
flooding. Mallard foraging effort was positively correlated with invertebrate
biomass and opening size (P<0.001). Burning produced less cattail mortality
than winter mowing followed by spring flooding [1]. For detailed
information, refer to the Research Project Summary Winter
fire in a marshland in St Clair National Wildlife Area, Ontario.
Cattail marshes are difficult to burn 2 years in a row because
accumulated debris is needed for fuel. The thick bases of cattail
species are often the last part of the plant to dry out and are
difficult to burn.
Canada geese, herons, egrets, and other waterfowl use burned marsh areas
for feeding and nesting [4].
Draining and burning marshes during July inhibits rapid growth of
cattail species. Several fires during summer will release nutrients if
a portion of the organic mat is removed [30]. Draining and burning
before a thick mat layer forms is necessary for slowing palludification.
Fires on nutrient-poor fens can reduce species diversity and create
oligotrophic bogs, but on nutrient-rich sites fires will not typically
reduce species diversity [30].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Typha angustifolia
REFERENCES :
1. Ball, J. P. 1984. Habitat selection and optimal foraging by mallards: a
field experiment. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 44 p. Thesis.
[18071]
2. Barrett, Nels E.; Niering, William A. 1993. Tidal marsh restoration:
trends in vegetation change using a geographical information system
(GIS). Restoration Ecology. 1(1): 18-28. [20797]
3. 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]
4. Beule, John D. 1979. Control and management of cattails in southeastern
Wisconsin wetlands. Tech. Bull No. 112. Madison, WI: Department of
Natural Resources. 40 p. [14574]
5. Bolen, Eric G. 1964. Plant ecology of spring-fed salt marshes in western
Utah. Ecological Monographs. 34(2): 143-166. [11214]
6. Capen, David E.; Low, Jessop B. 1980. Management considerations for
nongame birds in western wetlands. In: DeGraaf, Richard M., technical
coordinator. Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame
birds: Workshop proceedings; 1980 February 11-14; Salt Lake City, UT.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station:
67-77. [17898]
7. Croft, Lisa K.; Haley, Jennifer S.; Paulson, Larry J. 1990. The Lake
Mead cover enhancement project: planting native vegetation creates new
habitat. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration
`89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of
the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA.
Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for
Ecological Restoration: 403-419. [14713]
8. Damman, Antoni W. H.; French, Thomas W. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs
of the glaciated northeastern United States: a community profile.
Biological Report 85(7.16). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Research and Development, National
Wetlands Research Center. 100 p. [9238]
9. Dobberteen, Ross A.; Nickerson, Norton H. 1991. Use of created cattail
(Typha) wetlands in mitigation strategies. Environmental Management.
15(6): 797-808. [17431]
10. 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]
11. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Grace, James B.; Harrison, Janet S. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds.
73. Typha latifolia L., Typha angustifolia L. and Typha
× glauca Godr. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 66: 361-379. [17673]
16. Grace, James B.; Wetzel, Robert G. 1982. Niche differentiation between
two rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 60: 46-57. [17683]
17. Jenkins, Robert. 1973. Ecosystem restoration. In: Hulbert, Lloyd C., ed.
Third Midwest prai; 1972 September 22-23; Manhattan, KS. Manhattan, KS:
Kansas State University, Division of Biology: 23-27. [18794]
18. Kantrud, Harold A. 1990. Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding
waterfowl in prairie wetlands--a literature review. In: Severson, Kieth
E., tech. coord. Can livestock be used as a tool to enhance wildlife
habitat?: Proceedings, 43rd annual meeting of the Society for Range
Managememt; 1990 February 13; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 93-123. [16001]
19. 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]
20. Linde, Arlyn F.; Janisch, Thomas; Smith, Dale. 1976. Cattail - the
significance of its growth, phenology and carbohydrate storage to its
control and management. Tech. Bull. No. 94. Madison, WI: Department of
Natural Resources. 27 p. [17678]
21. Morton, Julia F. 1975. Cattails (Typha spp.) - Weed problem or potential
crop?. Economic Botany. 29: 7-29. [17675]
22. Nelson, Jeffrey W.; Kadlec, John A.; Murkin, Henry R. 1990. Seasonal
comparisons of weight loss for two types of Typha glauca Godr. leaf
litter. Aquatic Botany. 37(4): 299-314. [17426]
23. Niering, William. 1992. The New England forests. Restoration &
Management Notes. 10(1): 24-28. [19731]
24. O'Neil, Ted. 1949. The muskrat in the Louisiana coastal marshes. New
Orleans, LA: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Fish and
Game Division, Federal Aid Section. 152 p. [18182]
25. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
26. 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]
27. Tilmant, James Thomas. 1975. Habitat utilization by round-tailed
muskrats (Neofiber alleni) in Everglades National Park. Arcata, CA:
Humboldt State University. 91 p. Thesis. [17793]
28. Ungar, Irwin A. 1984. Autecological studies with Atriplex triangularis
willdenow. In: Tiedemann, Arthur R.; McArthur, E. Durant; Stutz, Howard
C.; [and others], compilers. Proceedings--symposium on the biology of
Atriplex and related chenopods; 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-172. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 40-52. [8013]
29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982.
National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names.
SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
30. Mallik, A. U.; Wein, Ross W. 1986. Response of a Typha marsh community
to draining, flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany.
64: 2136-2143. [17672]
31. Hansen, Paul L.; Chadde, Steve W.; Pfister, Robert D. 1988. Riparian
dominance types of Montana. Misc. Publ. No. 49. Missoula, MT: University
of Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station. 411 p. [5660]
32. 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]
FEIS Home Page
