Typha angustifolia, narrowleaf cattail
Snyder, S. A. 1993. Typha angustifolia, narrowleaf cattail. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/typang
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| TYPANG | narrowleaf cattail | Typha angustifolia | Life Form: Plants/Graminoid Kingdom: Plantae Class: Monocot Order: Typhales Family: TyphaceaeTyphaceae Genus: Typha | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Native Invasiveness: Noninvasive |
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].
Synonyms
- No entry
Other Common Names
narrow-leaved cattail, narrow-leaf cattail, narrowleaved cattail
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].
States and Provinces
- United 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
- Canada: MB NB NS ON PQ
Site Characteristics
Narrowleaf cattail 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].
A stand of narrowleaf cattail.
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].
Plant Communities
Narrowleaf cattail grows in marshes, wet meadows, fens, estuaries, bogs, ditches, and along lake shores [15,31]. 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].
Botanical Description
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].
The cigar-shaped fruits of narrowleaf cattail.
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Helophyte
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].
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].
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].
A monotypic stand of narrowleaf cattail growing in a drainage in South Dakota.
Immediate Fire Effects
Burning top-kills narrowleaf cattail and reduces stem density [1]. Fires that burn into the peat layer can kill cattail [4].
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].
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil
- Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Fire Adaptations
Cattail rhizomes sprout following fire [4].
Plant Response to Fire
Narrowleaf cattail will sprout following fire if rhizomes are not consumed [1,4].
Fire Regimes
For fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name or acronym on the home page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.
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 paludification (i.e., the process by which forest is converted to peatland). 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].
Federal Status
None
Other Status
No entry.
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
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 and Nutritional Value
Food values for leaf litter of the narrowleaf cattail hybrid, T. × glauca, have been listed [22]:
| Leaf type | Time | Nitrogen (%) | Phosphorus (%) | Ash (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green | Early July | 2.77 | 0.29 | 6.55 |
| Senesced | Early February | 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 or Restoration 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
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].
Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.
Forest and Range Ecosystems (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
- FRES28 Western hardwoods
- FRES37 Mountain meadows
- FRES39 Prairie
- FRES41 Wet grasslands
- FRES42 Annual grasslands
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- 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 (Kuchler 1964)
- K049 Tule marshes
- K072 Sea oats prairie
- K073 Northern cordgrass prairie
- K074 Bluestem prairie
- K092 Everglades
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 63 Cottonwood
- 235 Cottonwood - willow
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry
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]