Minnesota Invasive Terrestrial Plants & Pests Center Species Evaluation

Typha angustifolia L. (Narrow leaf cattail)

Evaluated: A.C. Morey; Reviewed: R.C. Venette (1/16/19)

OVERVIEW:

Common names: narrow leaf cattail, narrow-leaved cattail, lesser reed-mace, nail- rod, small reed-mace, southern reedmace, lesser bulrush

Synonyms: Typha gracilis

Typha angustifolia is one of the three cattail (Typhaceae) taxa found in Minnesota. Whether T. angustifolia is native to North America remains uncertain which complicates perception of its invasiveness and impacts. Nonetheless, its range in North America was previously restricted to Atlantic coastal marshes until the 1800s, upon which time it began spreading westward and hybridizing with T. latifolia, a species considered native to North America. Further, recent evidence suggests T. angustifolia is polyphyletic (Ciotir and Freeland 2016).

MAJOR KNOWLEDGE GAPS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENT:

 Geographic origin/invasive status  Quantitative impact to agriculture  Quantitative impact to recreation/property  Economic costs from mitigation

ARRIVAL Proximity to Minnesota: VERY HIGH

RANKING Very High Pest is known to occur in Minnesota Pest occurs in Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Manitoba or High Ontario Medium Pest occurs in North America Low Pest is not known to occur in North America

1 | T. angustifolia

Typha angustifolia is documented in all but four counties in Minnesota (Sibley, Brown, Olmsted, and Winona Co.), with the earliest herbarium record occurring in 1937 in Martin Co (UMN-Bell 2019; EDDMapS 2019).

It otherwise occurs extensively in the Midwest and eastern U.S., and sporadically throughout the south and west (EDDMapS 2019; USDA-NRCS 2019). It has also been documented in most Canadian provinces (USDA-NRCS 2019; Grace and Harrison 1986).

Existence of Pathways: HIGH

RANKING High Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are known to occur Pathways for the arrival of the pest in Minnesota are conceivable, but not Medium known to occur Low Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are difficult to conceive

Typha angustifolia is documented within Minnesota (see Proximity to Minnesota) and no regulatory action currently exists to limit its arrival or spread (Gupta, Rager, and Weber 2019).

Typha angustifolia is intentionally planted and grown for multiple purposes, including biomass production, wastewater treatment, wildlife habitat, phytoremediation, landscaping, and reclamation (Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988; Bah et al. 2011; Hall 2008; Snyder 1993). Seeds and plants are widely available for purchase online (e.g., amazon.com, plant-world-seeds.com, ecrater.com, ebay.com). A recent study in Canada demonstrated the nursery trade contributes to the intercontinental spread of T. angustifolia (Ciotir and Freeland 2016).

Unintentional human-mediated dispersal can come from spread along transportation corridors such as canals, railroads, and highways (Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018). Mud with embedded seeds can stick to apparel, livestock, and machinery (Hall 2008). The movement of T. angustifolia westward across the U.S. is considered to have been aided by human disturbance, such as construction and application of road salts (Hall 2008; Galatowitsch 2012).

Arrival into the state from natural dispersal of seeds or rhizome fragments is also possible; T. angustifolia is found in nearby regions in WI, MI, ND, SD, and IA, as well as Ontario and Manitoba (see Proximity to Minnesota).

2 | T. angustifolia

Innate Dispersal Capacity: MODERATELY LOW

RANKING Maximum recorded dispersal >500 km per year (or moves in low level Very High jets/ upper atmosphere) High Maximum recorded dispersal 500-250 km per year Moderate Maximum recorded dispersal 100-250 km per year Maximum recorded dispersal 1-100 km per year (wind dispersal; flowing Moderately Low water) Maximum recorded dispersal <1 km per year (movement through soil; Low splash dispersal)

Typha angustifolia can naturally disperse by seeds or rhizomes. Seeds can be dispersed by flowing water or wind (Hall 2008; Coops and Velde 1995). Seeds may also become embedded in fish scales or attached to livestock and birds (Hall 2008). Quantitative estimates of seed dispersal could not be found.

Once seedlings establish, spread by rhizomes has been estimated as 1– 4m/year (Hall 2008; Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018).

ESTABLISHMENT AND PERSISTENCE

Suitability of Minnesota Climate: HIGH

RANKING High >40% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Medium >20 to 40% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Low >0 to 20% of Minnesota is predicted to be suitable Negligible No part of Minnesota is suitable

Typha angustifolia is considered a USDA Zone 2 species (MBG 2019; NC-State 2019), which would indicate that all of Minnesota is climatically suitable. Its current distribution throughout state includes supports this characterization – there are documented occurrences in all the state’s climate zones (3a-5a) (EDDMapS 2019; USDA-ARS 2012).

3 | T. angustifolia

Presence of Hosts: HIGH

RANKING High >10% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds) Medium >1 to 10% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds) Low >0 to 1% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds) Negligible 0% of Minnesota with suitable hosts (or habitat for weeds)

Typha angustifolia is an obligate wetland species (USDA-NRCS 2019) and is considered an early to mid-seral species (Snyder 1993). It grows in marshes, wet meadows, fens, estuaries, bogs, ditches, irrigation canals, backwaters or rivers and streams, and along lake/pond margins (Snyder 1993; Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018). Typha angustifolia can tolerate a range of conditions, including high alkalinity and salinity (Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988; Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018), and exposure to heavy metals (Bah et al. 2011). Compared to co-occurring T. latifolia, T. angustifolia can colonize deeper waters and is more typically prevalent in disturbed wetlands (Snyder 1993; Hall 2008).

Minnesota has an estimated 12.2 million acres of wetlands (Kloiber, Norris, and Bergman 2019), which is over 23% of state land. Even if an assumption of only 50% of the areas classified as “wetland” in the Kloiber et al. (2019) report were suitable for T. angustifolia, the estimate would still be >10%.

Hybridization/Host Shift: HIGH

RANKING High Species reported to hybridize or has undergone a documented host shift Medium Species in the same genus have been reported to hybridize/shift hosts Low Hybridization/Host shifts have not been reported for this genus or species

Interspecific hybridization is known between multiple species of Typha (Smith 1967; Galatowitsch, Anderson, and Ascher 1999). Most notably, Typha angustifolia will naturally hybridize with T. latilofia in areas of co-occurrence, producing an invasive hybrid referred to as Typha x glauca. This hybrid often shows hybrid vigor in many ecological conditions (Galatowitsch, Anderson, and Ascher 1999; Bansal et al. 2019).

4 | T. angustifolia

SPREAD

Existence of Pathways: HIGH

RANKING High Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are known to occur Pathways for the arrival of the pest in Minnesota are conceivable, but not Medium known to occur Low Pathways for arrival of the pest in Minnesota are difficult to conceive

Typha angustifolia has been present and spreading within the state for more than 80 years (see Proximity to Minnesota).

Typha angustifolia is intentionally planted and grown for multiple purposes, including biomass production, wastewater treatment, wildlife habitat, phytoremediation, landscaping, and reclamation (Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988; Bah et al. 2011; Hall 2008; Snyder 1993). Seeds and plants are widely available for purchase online (e.g., amazon.com, plant-world-seeds.com, ecrater.com, ebay.com). A recent study in Canada demonstrated the nursery trade contributes to long-distance spread of T. angustifolia (Ciotir and Freeland 2016).

Unintentional human-mediated dispersal can come from spread along transportation corridors such as canals, railroads, and highways (Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018). Mud with embedded seeds can stick to apparel, livestock, and machinery (Hall 2008). The movement of T. angustifolia westward across the U.S. is considered to have been aided by human disturbance, such as construction and application of road salts (Hall 2008; Galatowitsch 2012).

Dispersal Capacity-Reproductive Potential: HIGH

RANKING High Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is >500 descendants per year Medium Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is 100 to 500 descendants per year Low Annual reproductive potential (r) of pest is <100 descendants per year

Typha sp. can reproduce sexually by seeds and or asexually through axillary rhizomes. Flowers are monoecious, wind-pollinated, and develop into tufted seeds (nutlets) (Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018; Bansal et al. 2019). Seeds are lightweight stalked capsules with long hairs that are released annually (Coops and Velde 1995).

Estimates of annual seed production range from 20,000-700,000 per plant (Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018; Coops and Velde 1995; Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988), with reports of seeds remaining viable for 70-100 years under certain conditions (Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018; Snyder 1993). Germination and seedling survival in the field can be variable, with one study observing up to 55% survival (Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988).

5 | T. angustifolia

The contribution of rhizome production to annual reproduction is unknown.

Extent of Invasion: VERY HIGH

RANKING Very High >60 countries likely to have established populations of the pest High 30-60 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Moderate 15-29 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Moderately Low 7-14 countries likely to have established populations of the pest Negligible 1-7 countries likely to have established populations of the pest

Typha angustifolia is currently documented in all but four of the 87 counties in Minnesota (Sibley, Brown, Olmsted, and Winona Co.) (see Proximity to Minnesota). Whether these counties represent true absences is unknown, but it is unlikely that climate (see Suitability of Minnesota Climate), habitat availability (see Presence of Hosts), or dispersal (innate or human-mediated) would prevent establishment of T. angustifolia in these areas within the next 10 years if the species is not already present.

Existence of Vectors: HIGH

RANKING High Vectored by birds or long distance insect migrants Medium Vectored by insects or bats Low Vectored by other mammals Negligible No evidence of any vectors

Typha angustifolia seeds can become attached to and transported by fish, birds, and mammals such as livestock or species using it for nesting material (Hall 2008).

IMPACT

Problem Elsewhere: HIGH

RANKING High Noted as a problem within its native range and areas where it has invaded Medium Noted as a problem only in areas where it has invaded Low Not reported as a problem elsewhere

6 | T. angustifolia

The nativity of T. angustifolia is uncertain, with some considering it native to Europe (e.g. (Gupta, Rager, and Weber 2019; Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018; Ciotir and Freeland 2016) and others as potentially native to North America (MBG 2019; Hall 2008; Shih and Finkelstein 2008). Of greater certainty is that T. angustifolia was restricted to the eastern coasts of North America (perhaps since pre-European settlement (Shih and Finkelstein 2008)) until the 1800s and has since spread aggressively westward, negatively affecting biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Grace and Harrison 1986; Shih and Finkelstein 2008; Galatowitsch, Anderson, and Ascher 1999). It does not, however, appear listed under any federal or state noxious weed regulation (USDA-NRCS 2019). The Minnesota DNR explicitly recognizes that any Typha sp. has benefit in certain circumstances (MN-DNR 2015).

Documentation on the perception of T. angustifolia in Europe is lacking, though the invasive hybrid T. x glauca (resulting from T. angustifolia x T. latifolia) has also been reported there (Galatowitsch, Anderson, and Ascher 1999; Grace and Harrison 1986).

Impact to Yields and Marketability: LOW

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million

Blackbirds (multiple species) can cause economic damage to crops, with loss estimates of $1.3 and $3.5 million dollars annually to corn and sunflower, respectively, in North Dakota. These birds prefer Typha-dominated wetlands as roosting sites such that managing Typha coverage is a recommended mitigation tactic (Bansal et al. 2019; Linz and Homan 2011). Typha angustifolia may contribute to these losses, but since it is not a direct cause, damage from blackbirds will not be included in this measure. Dense stands of Typha can also obstruct irrigation canals, ponds, and ditches on agricultural land (Bansal et al. 2019), requiring control.

Typha angustifolia can also reduce the productivity of wild rice production (Dysievick, Lee, and Kabatay 2016). Typha latifolia, the oft-stated less competitive, native congener of T. angustifolia was estimated to reduce yields in Minnesota 5-10% (Nelson 2000). The MN DNR states the annual value of wild rice to be at least $2 million (MN-DNR 2019). Documentation of the impact of T. angustifolia could not be found, but it is assumed similar if not greater. Therefore, in the absence of additional figures, the costs associated with wild rice loss and obstruction of agricultural waterways is estimated as >$0.5 million.

7 | T. angustifolia

Costs of Quarantine or Other Mitigation (annual): MEDIUM

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million

Control of T. angustifolia includes herbicide application (e.g., glyphosate), marsh drawdowns followed by fire, heavy grazing, or by flooding over freshly cut plants (Snyder 1993; MN-DNR 2015; Stevens and Hoag 2000; Linz and Homan 2011).

Quantitative estimates for mitigation are lacking, though one source notes that treatment of Typha sp. with glyphosate cost $95/ha in 2009 (Linz and Homan 2011). ~52,700 ha of land, or 0.2% of the state, would need to be treated to exceed $5 million.

Control of Typha sp. is not required in the state. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains: “To preserve as much cattail habitat as possible, the DNR permits the removal of these plants [T. latifolia and T. angustifolia] only in a small area to provide boat access to deeper lake water. Cutting cattails below the water surface after first frost provides good control, as will application of a DNR-approved herbicide to the leaves. Once an area is cleared, control may not be needed again for several years.”

From 2013-2018, through the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund, an average of ~$2,217,833 was allocated per year to projects that included Typha removal, among other activities. Projects were typically 4 years in length. If all funding had been used for Typha removals, mitigation costs would have been ~$0.5 million per year. A ‘medium’ rating is justified, though uncertain, because we assume additional organizations are funding Typha removals in the state.

Impacts to Recreation or Real Estate (annual): LOW

RANKING High >$5 million Medium $5 million to 0.5 million Low <$0.5 million None $0

Dense stands of T. angustifolia can interfere with a property owner’s ability to use watercraft, swim, or engage in other recreational activities (MN-DNR 2015; Grace and Harrison 1986). Fishing habitat can decrease, as can habitat for certain waterfowl, and property can be damaged by floating mats (MN-DNR 2015). Management of T.

8 | T. angustifolia angustifolia in Minnesota requires a permit (MN-DNR 2015). The quantitative impacts these issues would have are undocumented, but they are assumed non-zero.

Consequences to Native Species (Score): 4

References are only needed for the “worst case” situation.

RANKING Could reasonably be expected to affect federally listed Threatened and 5 Endangered Species Could directly, negatively impact pollinator 4 Causes local loss of native species 4 Lowers density of native species (empirical support) 3 Infection to native fauna or flora 2 Consumes native fauna or flora 2 Production of toxic substances including allelochemicals 2 Lowers density of native species (presumed due to dense thicket or vining) 2 Host for recognized pathogens/parasites of native species 1 None of the above apply 0

Invasion by T. angustifolia negatively affects the diversity and abundance of other wetland taxa. Dense stands outcompete other plant species directly and indirectly, replacing emergent and submerged aquatic species (Bansal et al. 2019; Cao, Berent, and Fusaro 2018). For example, in a long term study that evaluated stands of mixed T. x glauca and T. angustifolia, species richness of co-occurring vascular plants significantly decreased through time (Mitchell et al. 2011). Typha angustifolia will replace the native T. latifolia through competition in all water depths except in very shallow water (Weisner 1993). Typha stands have also been shown to negatively alter the habits, resources, and diversity of native bird, fish, amphibian, and invertebrate communities (Bansal et al. 2019). Documentation of impacts to threatened or endangered species in these communities was not found.

Typha angustifolia root exudates have an allelopathic effect on other species, such as the native bulrush, Bolboschoenus fluviatilis, and the chemical profile appears to be distinct from that used by the congenur T. latifolia (Jarchow and Cook 2009).

It is noted that one source states that diseases have not been observed in natural or managed stands of Typhus sp. in Minnesota (Dubbe, Garver, and Pratt 1988).

Consequences to Ecosystem Services (Score): 5

RANKING Modification of soil, sediments, nutrient cycling Alteration of genetic resources Alteration of biological control Changes in pollination services Alteration of erosion regimes Affects hydrology or water quality (includes effects of management) Creates a fire hazard Interferes with carbon sequestration

9 | T. angustifolia

Whether the many traits of T. angustifolia that affect wetland ecosystem services have a positive or negative effect depends on the community context.

Typha angustifolia stands can reduce lake discharge by blocking outlet streams or irrigation canals (MN-DNR 2015; Grace and Harrison 1986) and may increase sedimentation and nutrient deposition (Su et al. 2007; Martin and Neely 2001; Bansal et al. 2019). It is often used for erosion control and to remediate contaminated areas due to its tolerance of heavy metals and positive response to eutrophication (Bansal et al. 2019; MN-DNR 2015; Bah et al. 2011). Typha angustifolia hybridizes with T. latifolia where they co-occur to produce the invasive T. x glauca, a taxa that can out- perform either parent species and dominate in mixed stands (Travis et al. 2010). There is some work that shows Typha sp. invasion increases carbon storage in plant, litter, and microbial biomass, increases the soil organic matter, and alters CH4 emission from wetlands (Bansal et al. 2019).

Facilitate Other Invasions: HIGH

Invasion by the organism could lead to invasions of other species.

RANKING High The invasive species has facilitated invasions elsewhere The invasive species is a plant or animal that could reasonably be expected Medium to be a host or vector of another invasive species The species has not been reported to facilitate invasion elsewhere and is Low not likely to directly aid in the invasion of other species

Where T. angustifolia is sympatric with T. latifolia, they will hybridize and produce T. x glauca, a taxon considered by some to be more invasive than T. angustifolia (Travis et al. 2010). This hybrid is generally larger and tolerates a greater range of environmental conditions than either parent species, and though it was previously considered sterile, can successfully reproduce (including through back-crossing with either parent) (Galatowitsch 2012; Bansal et al. 2019; Travis et al. 2010).

REFERENCES

Bah, A. M., H. Dai, J. Zhao, H. Sun, F. Cao, G. Zhang, and F. Wu. 2011. “Effects of Cadmium, Chromium and Lead on Growth, Metal Uptake and Antioxidative Capacity in Typha Angustifolia.” Biological Trace Element Research 142 (1): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-010-8746-6. Bansal, S., S.C. Lishawa, S. Newman, B.A. Tangen, D. Wilcox, D. Albert, M.J. Anteau, et al. 2019. “Typha (Cattail) Invasion in North American Wetlands: Biology, Regional Problems, Impacts, Ecosystem Services, and Management.” Wetlands 39 (4): 645–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-019-01174-7. Cao, L., L. Berent, and A. Fusaro. 2018. “Typha Angustifolia L.” Ann Arbor, MI: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System.

10 | T. angustifolia

2018. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=2679. Ciotir, Claudia, and Joanna Freeland. 2016. “Cryptic Intercontinental Dispersal, Commercial Retailers, and the Genetic Diversity of Native and Non-Native Cattails (Typha Spp.) in North America.” Hydrobiologia 768 (1): 137–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2538-0. Coops, H., and G. Velde. 1995. “Seed Dispersal, Germination and Seedling Growth of Six Helophyte Species in Relation to Water-Level Zonation.” Freshwater Biology 34 (1): 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1995.tb00418.x. Dubbe, D.R., E.G. Garver, and D.C. Pratt. 1988. “Production of Cattail (Typha Spp.) Biomass in Minnesota, USA.” Biomass 17 (2): 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(88)90073-X. Dysievick, Kristi E, Peter F Lee, and John Kabatay. 2016. “Recovery of a Wild Rice Stand Following Mechanical Removal of Narrowleaf Cattail Prepared for: International Joint Commission.” http://ijc.org/files/tinymce/uploaded/RNLRCSB/37_Seine_River_Wild_Rice_Fi nal.pdf. EDDMapS, Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System. 2019. “Narrow-Leaved Cattail, Typha Angustifolia L.” Tifton, GA: The University of Georgia - Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. https://www.eddmaps.org/distribution/uscounty.cfm?sub=11603. Galatowitsch, Susan M. 2012. “Why Some Wetland Plants Are Invasive and How They Affect Restoration.” National Wetland Newsletter 34 (4): 16–19. Galatowitsch, Susan M., Neil O. Anderson, and Peter D. Ascher. 1999. “Invasiveness in Wetland Plants in Temperate North America.” Wetlands 19 (4): 733–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03161781. Grace, James B., and Janet S. Harrison. 1986. “The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 73. Typha Latifolia L., Typha Angustifolia L. and Typha x Glauca Godr.” Journal of Plant Science 66: 361–79. Gupta, A., A. Rager, and M. Weber. 2019. “Narrow-Leaf Cattail.” University of Minnesota Extension - Identify Invasive Species. 2019. https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/narrow-leaf-cattail. Hall, S. 2008. “Typha x Glauca (Hybrid Cattail).” Invasive Species Compendium [Online]. CAB International. https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/107745. Jarchow, Meghann E., and Bradley J. Cook. 2009. “Allelopathy as a Mechanism for the Invasion of Typha Angustifolia.” Plant Ecology 204 (1): 113–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-009-9573-8. Kloiber, S.M., D.J. Norris, and A.L. Bergman. 2019. “Minnesota Wetland Inventory: User Guide and Summary Statistics.” St. Paul, MN. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/nwi-user-guide.pdf. Linz, George M., and H. Jeffrey Homan. 2011. “Use of Glyphosate for Managing Invasive Cattail (Typha Spp.) to Disperse Blackbird (Icteridae) Roosts.” Crop Protection 30 (2): 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.10.003. Martin, Dianne C., and Robert K. Neely. 2001. “Benthic Macroinvertebrate Response to Sedimentation in a Typha Angustifolia L. Wetland.” Wetlands Ecology and Management 9 (5): 441–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012046624646. MBG, Missouri Botanical Garden. 2019. “Typha Angustifolia.” Plant Finder. 2019. http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/PlantFinder/PlantFinderDetails.aspx? taxonid=287386. Mitchell, Mark E., Shane C. Lishawa, Pamela Geddes, Daniel J. Larkin, David Treering,

11 | T. angustifolia

and Nancy C. Tuchman. 2011. “Time-Dependent Impacts of Cattail Invasion in a Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Complex.” Wetlands 31 (6): 1143–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-011-0225-0. MN-DNR, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015. “Permitting Policies for the Management of Narrow-Leaved and Hybrid Cattail in a Range of Basin Types Report to the 2015 Minnesota Legislature.” https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2015/mandated/150015.pdf. ———. 2019. “Wild Rice (Zizania Palustris).” Aquatic Plants. 2019. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/aquatic_plants/emergent_plants/wildrice.html. NC-State, North Carolina State University Extension. 2019. “Typha Angustifolia.” North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox. 2019. https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/typha-angustifolia/. Nelson, J.J. 2000. “Crop Profile for Wild Rice in Minnesota.” https://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/documents/cropprofiles/mnwildrice.pdf. Shih, Jessica G, and Sarah A Finkelstein. 2008. “Range Dynamics and Invasive Tendencies in Typha Latifolia and Typha Angustifolia in Eastern North America Derived from Herbarium and Pollen Records.” Wetlands 28 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1672/07-40.1. Smith, S. Galen. 1967. “Experimental and Natural Hybrids in North American Typha (Typhaceae).” American Midland Naturalist 78 (2): 257. https://doi.org/10.2307/2485231. Snyder, S.A. 1993. “Species: Typha Angustifolia.” Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) [Online]. USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/typang/all.html. Stevens, M., and C. Hoag. 2000. “Plant Guide for Narrowleaf Cattail.” Aberdeen, Idaho: USDA-NRCS, National Plant Data Center and Idaho Plant Materials Center. https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_tyan.pdf. Su, Rong, Rachel N. Lohner, Kevin A. Kuehn, Robert Sinsabaugh, and Robert K. Neely. 2007. “Microbial Dynamics Associated with Decomposing Typha Angustifolia Litter in Two Contrasting Lake Erie Coastal Wetlands.” Aquatic Microbial Ecology 46 (3): 295–307. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame046295. Travis, S.E., J.E. Marburger, S. Windels, and B. Kubátová. 2010. “Hybridization Dynamics of Invasive Cattail (Typhaceae) Stands in the Western Great Lakes Region of North America: A Molecular Analysis.” Journal of Ecology 98 (1): 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01596.x. UMN-Bell, University of Minnesota Bell Museum. 2019. “Minnesota Biodiversity Atlas.” St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. https://bellatlas.umn.edu/. USDA-ARS, United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service. 2012. “USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map.” 2012. https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/. USDA-NRCS, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. “Plant Profile: Typha Angustifolia L., Narrowleaf Cattail.” PLANTS Database. 2019. https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=TYAN. Weisner, S.E.B. 1993. “Long-Term Competitive Displacement of Typha Latifolia by Typha Angustifolia in a Eutrophic Lake.” Oecologia 94 (3): 451–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317123.

12 | T. angustifolia