Abstract
As a result of water-level regulation, cattails have invaded sedge/grass meadow in all wetlands on Lake Ontario. Even with a change in water-level-regulation to a more natural hydrologic regime, restoration requires methods for active cattail management without the ability to manipulate water depths and without imperiling other vegetation. We conducted replicated studies at a wetland site with an active invasion front in zones of nearly mono-dominant cattail and transitional invasion. We tested various combinations of cutting cattail ramets when carbohydrate reserves were minimized, spraying cut stems with herbicide, slicing rhizomes to mimic tilling, and hand-wicking resprouted ramets with herbicide. We also collected companion environmental data. The most effective treatment in both zones was cutting during the period with reduced rhizome carbohydrates followed by hand-wicking resprouted ramets with herbicide in late summer, which allows the herbicide to be absorbed by the rhizomes. Two years of treatment provide the best results, reducing cattail stem counts and cover by more than 50%, but follow-up applications in ensuing years may be warranted to treat surviving cattails. Given the widespread problem of cattail invasion, these treatments may have broad application in wetlands where water levels cannot be manipulated.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Physical, chemical, and hydrologic disturbances in wetlands can open canopies, expose substrates, and reduce competition, thus allowing invasive plants to gain a foothold and potentially become dominant (e.g., Galatowitsch et al. 1999, Wilcox 2012). Less competitive species may thus be lost and diversity reduced (Wisheu and Keddy 1992; Boers et al. 2007). A prominent wetland invader is cattail (Typha spp.), which can exploit wetlands with increased nutrient availability (Woo and Zedler 2002), substrates exposed for seed germination (van der Valk and Davis 1978), and altered hydrology (e.g., Wilcox et al. 1984; Newman et al. 1998; Wilcox et al. 2008).
Regulation of water levels and flows on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River since the St. Lawrence Seaway began operation in 1960 resulted in compression of the range of water levels on Lake Ontario from approximately 1.5 m to 0.7 m (Wilcox and Xie 2007), with much of the loss of fluctuations due to lack of low lake levels (Wilcox et al. 2008). At higher elevations in the wetlands, sedge/grass meadow plants historically held a competitive advantage over cattails because they could better tolerate low soil moisture during low water years. Lack of low lake levels since the mid-1960s shifted the competitive advantage to the taller cattails, resulting in cattail invasion of all Lake Ontario wetlands and loss of large expanses of sedge/grass meadow (Wilcox et al. 2008). As a result, habitat for many fish and wildlife species has been lost and populations have been reduced (e.g., Farrell 2001; Desgranges et al. 2006; Toner et al. 2010; Gertzen et al. 2012).
Potential implementation of a new regulation plan for Lake Ontario that more closely mimics the natural hydrologic regime was suggested by the U.S.-Canadian International Joint Commission (IJC) in 2006 (Wilcox and Xie 2008), presenting the possibility for sedge/grass meadow plant species to compete with cattails in the future. However, sedge/grass species would likely not displace existing cattails in a reasonable time period without help, resulting in continued domination and potential expansion of cattails. Methods for reducing cattail cover in wetlands to promote restoration of sedge/grass meadow and other emergent communities need to be developed and tested before being implemented. If effective, they would have the potential to be applied to wetlands totaling more than 24,000 ha in area. Our objectives were to test several cattail-control methods that were compatible with hydrologic and other site characteristics of Lake Ontario wetlands at a site with an active zone of cattail invasion into sedge/grass meadow.
Control of cattails has been on the management and scientific agenda for many decades. Steenis et al. (1959) summarized early actions involving water-level manipulations and herbicide treatments. In-depth studies of cattail control methods followed (Nelson and Dietz 1966; Linde et al. 1976; Beule 1979), and other studies further narrowed the options for success (Weller 1975; Mallik and Wein 1986; Wilcox and Ray 1989; Ball 1990; Kostecke et al. 2004; Lawrence et al. 2016; Elgersma et al. 2017). Among methods tested were various combinations of hand-cutting or mowing or crushing of ramets, discing or rototilling of rhizomes, herbicide application, burning, covering with tarps, cattle-grazing, water-level manipulations, and explosives. Other larger scale mechanical methods have also been employed: weed-cutting boats (Hellsten et al. 1999), fangueo aquatic tractors (Osland et al. 2011), and a biomass harvester for bioenergy (Lishawa et al. 2015).
Many methods require physical alteration of habitat or control of water levels to force wintertime flooding conditions, which is not possible along the shores of the Great Lakes. However, less drastic methods are possible for reducing cattail dominance. Cutting cattails when storage carbohydrates reach their lowest concentration in rhizomes reduces the chance for survival, as storage reserves cannot be replenished without above-ground leaf tissue present to carry out photosynthesis (Sojda and Solberg 1993; Hall and Zedler 2010). Cut plants will resprout, however, so secondary treatments are necessary to reduce new photosynthesis and growth.
To meet our objectives, we considered the relative success and practicality of many of the methods described and evaluated by others in relation to environmental conditions present in Lake Ontario wetlands. The presence of floating cattail mats along the waterward edge of many wetlands makes treatments that require heavy equipment impractical there, and the mats would not be affected by water-level manipulations. Cutting ramets and flooding over winter, although effective, is not possible because lake levels are lowest in winter. Controlled burning was not considered because many Lake Ontario wetlands are adjacent to developed lands. Given the loss of sedge/grass meadow due to cattail invasion (Wilcox et al. 2008), the focus for testing was placed on the landward edge of the cattails where invasion of sedge/grass meadow is ongoing and might be reduced. To avoid destroying remnant sedge/grass meadow plants while controlling cattails, more selective methods were chosen for testing that targeted regeneration of cattails from rhizomes following cutting. We selected the following treatments for evaluation: 1) cutting cattail ramets, 2) hand-spraying cut stems with herbicide, 3) tilling rhizomes by hand, and 4) applying herbicide to re-sprouting cattail stems by hand-wicking to avoid affecting non-target plants.
Methods
Study Site
Kents Creek is a drowned river mouth wetland located at the east side of Lake Ontario about five kilometers south of Cape Vincent, New York, USA (44°5′4.03″N, 76°18′16.70″W) (Fig. 1). The 98,419 ha watershed drains primarily agricultural and forested lands. The lower creek meanders through a large flat basin and into Mud Bay, which connects the creek to Lake Ontario; water levels are controlled by the lake. Although most Lake Ontario wetlands are almost totally dominated by cattails, the 91-ha emergent marsh containing the study site has large areas of sedge/grass meadow that persist at slightly higher elevations provided by the broad, gently sloping basin morphology. The effects of long-term higher lake levels and increased soil moisture that have favored invasion of cattails (Wilcox et al. 2008) are thus avoided. The creek at the study site has long stretches with an obvious gradient of cattail density that thins from nearly mono-dominant along the shore to sporadic cattail individuals within the sedge/grass meadow.
Field Methods
This study was conducted in two parts -- one in the nearly mono-dominant Cattail Zone and the other in the transitional Meadow Zone where estimated cattail cover in the sedge/grass meadow was 15–20%. Methods implemented in both zones were nearly identical, but a treatment to mimic tilling was also employed in the Cattail Zone, where few other taxa were present to be affected. Cattail-control treatments and data collection were conducted in two years (2010, 2011) in both zones, but a third year of data collection (2012) was added in the Meadow Zone to capture continued response to follow-up treatments.
Five replicate study areas for each zone, roughly parallel to the south shore of the creek, were selected following elevation surveys conducted to ensure similar hydrologic conditions. In late May 2010, prior to sprouting, the previous year’s growth of cattail in the five study areas in each zone (5 m × 15 m in Meadow Zone, 5 m × 27 m in Cattail Zone) was cut with a steel-blade trimmer, and the cut material was completely removed from the study areas, along with the previous years’ litter, so that sampling and treatments were not affected by the presence of dead Typha biomass. This also allowed each treatment block to be laid out accurately and increased light availability. Treatment and control plots inside each treatment replicate block consisted of 1 m × 1 m plots that were staked with PVC pipe and separated by a 1 m × 1 m working area/buffer (Fig. 2). Treatments were applied in a complete factorial, random block design.
Four treatments were tested. The primary treatment method was cutting Typha using hand-held loppers (C); cut stems were then removed from the treatment plots. This treatment included cutting in year 1 only or cutting in both years 1 and 2. The cutting treatments were conducted on 31 June 2010 and 11 July 2011 when energy reserves in the rhizomes were assumed to be at their lowest concentrations (Linde et al. 1976; Biesboer 1984); both dates fell within a three-week window from one week before to one week after the pistillate spikes were lime green and the staminate spikes were dark green (Sojda and Solberg 1993).
The second treatment method was spraying newly-cut Typha stems with glyphosate (Rodeo) using a hand-held sprayer (S) to avoid spraying other (non-target) plants. This treatment was conducted only in combination with cutting in year 1 or years 1 and 2. The third treatment consisted of wicking herbicide (W) manually to re-sprouted Typha plants in late August with a cloth glove doused in glyphosate worn over a rubber glove. The glove was run from the bottom of each leaf to the top and on both sides of the leaf to ensure complete leaf application. Wicking of re-sprouted stems was selected over spraying to avoid affecting other plants. In the Meadow Zone, this treatment was either not conducted, done in year 1, or done in both years 1 and 2. In the Cattail Zone, the wicking treatment, if conducted, was done only in year 1. The additional treatment to mimic tilling (T) in the Cattail Zone, if conducted, was done only in year 1. Typha rhizomes were cut manually using a trenching shovel forced into the ground around every Typha stem, as this produced a result similar to tilling with larger equipment.
The different combinations of these techniques resulted in 12 different treatments in the Meadow Zone (2x2x3 block design: Cutting n = 2, Spraying n = 2, Wicking n = 3) and 16 treatments in the Cattail Zone (2x2x2x2 design: Cutting n = 2, Spraying n = 2, Wicking n = 2, Tilling n = 2) (Table 1). Two control plots were also randomly assigned to each of five treatment blocks in both zones, in which previous years’ growth and litter had been removed but no treatments applied, for a total of 32 plots -- 14 in the Meadow Zone and 18 in the Cattail Zone (Fig. 2).
To evaluate treatment responses, vegetation was sampled twice each year. Sampling entailed identifying each plant present in the plot to species level and estimating percent cover. Individual Typha plants were identified to species level using a combination of indicators that differentiate Typha x glauca Godr. from Typha angustifolia L. (Gertz et al. 1994). Typha latifolia L. was never encountered. In addition, Typha stems were counted within each 1 m2 plot to show direct effects of treatments. Primary vegetation sampling occurred on 9–11 July 2010 and 30 June 2011, before each round of treatments was applied. Cutting and spraying treatments were applied immediately following primary sampling. Secondary sampling occurred on 22–23 August 2010 and 25 August 2011 and involved the same parameters as in the primary sampling. Following secondary sampling, the wick treatment was applied to re-sprouting Typha plants in applicable treatment plots. Follow-up vegetation sampling in the Meadow Zone was conducted on 28 August 2012 to note further changes in the overall plant community. All vegetation surveys were conducted by the same trained individuals in each zone in all years.
Environmental factors were measured during the growing season to help understand the underlying variables related to Typha control and sedge/grass meadow restoration. Water-table wells were installed at both ends of each treatment block (Fig. 2) to measure the variability of ground-water elevations. Percent soil moisture measurements were taken with a Dynamax TH20 Moisture Probe in each plot to relate treatment success to soil-moisture levels. Water-table and soil-moisture readings were taken weekly throughout the growing season in 2010 and bi-monthly in 2011. Soil moisture was also measured in 2012 in the Meadow Zone.
In the spring of 2010, sediment depths of each treatment and control plot in both zones were measured using a soil auger to reach the underlying clay layer. Two surface soil cores were also collected per treatment block in 2010 to measure bulk density and percent soil organic matter. Bulk density analysis was conducted using methods described by Grossman and Reinsch (2002). Following bulk density analysis, percent loss on ignition was used to estimate percent organic matter using methods described by Storer (1984).
Statistical Analyses
Paired T-tests were used to compare response variables (Typha stem counts, Typha percent cover) before (2010) versus after (2012) treatment to test the significance of individual treatments or treatment combinations. Some datasets were non-normal, so the non-parametric alternative, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was used. Paired T-tests were also used to test for significant differences in pre- and post-cattail treatment cover of Carex lacustris Willd. and Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) P. Beauv., which were the two most dominant sedge/grass meadow species present in the Meadow Zone in all five treatment areas. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric alternative to ANOVA was used to test for differences in soil moisture among the five treatment replicates within each of the sampling years in both zones. One-way ANOVAs with Tukey’s multiple comparisons were used to test for differences in sediment depth, mean bulk density, and mean percent organic matter among the five treatment replicates in both zones.
Results
Meadow Zone
Typha
The effectiveness of the various treatment combinations (e.g., C1S1W1) was evaluated based on their ability to reduce Typha stem counts and percent cover over the three-year study period (pre-treatment 2010 vs. post-treatment 2012 vegetation sampling). Seven treatment combinations significantly reduced the mean number of Typha stems across all plots over that period: C1W1, C1W12, C1S1W12, C12, C12S12, C12W12, and C12S12W1 (Table 2). Six of those seven treatments more than halved the mean number of stems from 2010 to 2012. The remaining treatment combinations (C1, C1S1, C1S1W1, C12W1, C12S12W12) resulted in lower Typha stem counts, but the differences were not significant. Typha in the control treatment plots fluctuated throughout the study and lost an average of 1.2 stems over the three-year period.
Five treatment combinations resulted in significant reductions in mean Typha percent cover by more than 50% across all plots from 2010 to 2012: C1S1W12, C1W12, C12S12, C12W1, and C12W12 (Table 3). Of these treatments, all but C12W1 were among the seven treatments that significantly reduced Typha stem counts. Although the remaining treatment combinations (C1, C1S1, C1W1, C1S1W1, C12, C12S12W1, C12S12W12) also reduced Typha percent cover, the reduction was not statistically significant. Percent cover of Typha in control plots fluctuated slightly throughout the study but was relatively unchanged at the end of the study.
No treatment combination showed an increase in either Typha stem count or percent cover. With the exception of C12 and C12S12, all treatment combinations that significantly reduced Typha stem counts and percent cover had the wick treatment in year 1 or years 1 and 2. However, not all treatments with wick application showed a significant effect. These exceptions may be related to outliers among replicate blocks with different environmental conditions. However, statistical analysis of soil moisture, the most important environmental factor measured, revealed no difference across the full range of all treatment blocks. Although treatments had widespread success at reducing Typha stem counts across replicates, they had varied success at reducing percent cover across replicates. Across treatments, blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4 had significantly greater decreases in mean Typha stem counts at the end of the study (August 2012) compared to the beginning (July 2010), while treatment block 5 had the smallest mean reduction of Typha stem count.
Sedge/Grass
The mean cover of C. lacustris in treatments that showed a significant reduction in Typha percent cover was 21.7% in pre-treatment July 2010 and 14.0% in post-treatment August 2012; this difference was not significant. In treatments with no significant decrease in Typha cover, the mean cover of C. lacustris was reduced from 23.6% in 2010 to 14.1% in 2012 (T = 3.298, p = 0.016). In control plots, the mean cover of C. lacustris decreased from 37% to 15.5% from July 2010 to August 2012. The mean cover of C. canadensis in treatments with Typha reduction increased from 26.4% in 2010 to 50.0% in 2012 (T = −9.667, p = 0.001), while in treatments with no Typha reduction, it increased from 24.3% in 2010 to 45.4% in 2012 (T = −8.106, p = 0.000). In the control plots, C. canadensis increased from 21% to 36% mean cover from July 2010 to August 2012. Loss of Typha cover created little open space because much of the cover was in overstory.
Environmental Conditions
Water-table elevations in monitoring wells closely followed Lake Ontario gauged water-level data (NOAA 2012). In 2010, the water table peaked in July at 74.97 m (IGLD1985) and steadily decreased throughout the growing season. In 2011, the water table rose sharply in the spring and stayed elevated during May, June, and July (75.23, 75.33, and 75.14 m, respectively). The water table then fluctuated throughout the remainder of the sampling season. In 2012, the water table steadily decreased throughout the sampling period, from 74.91 m in May to 74.90 in June, 74.79 m in July, and 74.76 m in August.
There were no significant differences in mean percent soil moisture among all treatment plots across all replicate blocks for each of the three sampling seasons (Kruskall-Wallis: 2010 H12 = 11.46, p = 0.490; 2011 H10 = 8.11, p = 0.618; 2012 H12 = 16.58, p = 0.166). Based on this result, any differences in Typha response to treatments were likely not in response to differing soil moisture regimes. However, median soil moisture at block 5 was only 78.1% and ranged from 85.3 to 90.8% at the other block in 2010. So, block 5 may have been drier, although differences were less pronounced in extremely wet 2011 and drier 2012.
Sediment depth to clay at block 3 (32.6 cm) was significantly less (ANOVA: F4 = 3.50, p = 0.012) than at the other blocks (ranging from 35.1 to 38.3 cm). Mean soil bulk density was significantly greater (ANOVA: F4 = 7.96, p = 0.021) at block 5 (0.52 g/cm3) than at the other blocks, which ranged from 0.17 to 0.29 g/cm3. Percent soil organic matter ranged from a low of 18.7 at block 5 to as high as 56.3% at block 2, but the differences were not significant.
Cattail Zone
Typha
In the Cattail Zone, the effectiveness of the various treatment combinations was evaluated over a two-year study period (pre-treatment 2010 vs. post-treatment 2011 vegetation sampling). Six treatment combinations significantly reduced the number of Typha stems: C1W1, C1S1W1, C1W1T1, C12S12W1, C12W1T1, and C12S12W1T1 (Table 4). The latter three treatments reduced the number of stems by over 42% between 2010 and 2011. The remaining treatment combinations (C1, C1S1, C1T1, C1S1T1, C1S1W1T1, C12, C12S12, C12W1, C12T1, C12S12T1) did not significantly reduce stem counts, which increased in some treatments. The control treatment plots gained an average of 13.4 Typha stems through the two years of the study.
Four of the six treatments that significantly reduced Typha stem counts also significantly reduced Typha percent cover: C1S1W1, C12S12W1, C12W1T1, and C12S12W1T1 – the latter three by more than 65% (Table 5). The other two treatments that significantly reduced Typha cover were C12 and C12W1. The remaining treatment combinations (C1, C1S1, C1W1, C1T1, C1S1T1, C1W1T1, C1S1W1T1, C12S12, C12T1, C12S12T1) did not reduce Typha cover significantly or showed an increase. Treatments C12S12 and C12S12T1 reduced Typha cover substantially, but this was not significant. In the control plots, mean Typha cover increased by 28% over the two years of study.
Treatment combinations that were significant in reducing both Typha stems and percent cover through both years of the study had the wick treatment (W1) in common. All treatment plots, with the exception of C1, C1S1, C1T1, and C1S1T1 (all with cutting in year 1 only) had fewer Typha stems and less percent cover. Plots with only cutting in year 1 (C1) showed increases in Typha from August 2010 to June 2011 (e.g., C1S1 treatment). Initial reductions of Typha stems occurred, but lack of treatments in the following year allowed re-expansion.
The effectiveness of the treatments varied among treatment blocks in the Typha zone also. Treatment blocks 1 and 3 had significantly lower mean Typha stem counts at the end of the study (August 2011) compared to the beginning (July 2010). Treatment block 3 reduced the largest average amount of both Typha stem counts and percent cover.
Sedge/Grass
Carex lacustris and C. canadensis were also the primary sedge/grass meadow species present in the Cattail Zone. Carex lacustris was found in every treatment block, while C. canadensis was randomly distributed in the study area and did not occur in every block. The mean percent cover of C. lacustris was 3.8% in pre-treatment July 2010 and increased to 18.4% in post-treatment August 2011 (T = −6.956, p = 0.001) in those treatments that showed a significant reduction in Typha percent cover. In treatments with no significant decrease in Typha cover, the mean cover of C. lacustris increased from 3.8% in 2010 to 17.5% in 2011 (T = −6.157, p = 0.012). In control plots, the mean cover of C. lacustris increased from 3.3% to 12.8% from July 2010 to August 2011. In treatments with significant Typha reduction, the mean cover of C. canadensis increased from 4.6% in 2010 to 10.8% in 2011 (T = −3.192, p = 0.024), while in treatments with no Typha reduction, it increased from 2.7% in 2010 to 8.2% in 2011 (T = −4.392, p = 0.002). In the control plots, C. canadensis increased from 11.7% to 15% mean cover from July 2010 to August 2011.
Environmental Conditions
Levels in the water-table wells tracked gauged Lake Ontario water levels (NOAA 2012) and also followed the pattern shown in the Meadow Zone. In 2010, median soil moisture ranged from 72.3% in drier block 3 to greater than 99% in blocks 2 and 5. In wetter 2011, median soil moisture ranged from 90.6% in block 3 to 100% in blocks 2 and 5. For both years, block 3 was likely the cause for significant differences in soil moisture among the five treatment blocks (Kruskal-Wallis: 2010 H4 = 29.25, p = 0.000; 2011 H4 = 16.3, p = 0.003).
Sediment depth to clay differed significantly (ANOVA: F4 = 170.12, p = 0.000) among the five treatment blocks, ranging from 36 to 37 cm at blocks 1 and 3 to 63 cm at block 4 and 73 cm at block 5. Mean soil bulk density in block 3 (0.38 g/m3) was significantly greater than in the other blocks (0.12 to 0.24 g/cm3) (ANOVA: F4 = 18.96, p = 0.003). Although there were differences among blocks for percent organic matter, ranging from 20.8% in block 3 to 23.4–59.7% in the other blocks, they were not significant.
Discussion
Our objectives were to test cattail-control methods tested or suggested by others but adapted for hydrologic and environmental conditions present in Lake Ontario wetlands, which include winter low and summer high lake levels, inability to control water levels, floating cattail mats along the waterward edge, adjacent developed lands, and the presence of sedge/grass meadow species among the cattails. Cutting or mowing in June–July was tested by Nelson and Dietz (1966), Weller (1975), Linde et al. (1976), and Beule (1979); Lawrence et al. (2016) and Elgersma et al. (2017) later tested cutting also. Those studies generally found that lasting effectiveness required secondary treatments, such as herbicide application (Nelson and Dietz 1966; Weller 1975; Elgersma et al. 2017) or tilling/discing (Wilcox and Ray 1989; Kostecke et al. 2004). We designed our studies around their methodologies and conclusions, and we base our treatment recommendations on evaluation of the effectiveness of our results, as suggested by significance of treatment combinations shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Most Effective Treatment Combinations
Reduction of Typha stems and percent cover was dependent on the combination of treatments, but some general observations can be made. In the Meadow Zone, the treatments in which glyphosate was applied by wicking the regrowth of Typha ramets in late summer of one or both years were generally the most successful (Tables 2 and 3). In the Cattail Zone, wicking seemed to be the most important treatment as well, as it was included in every treatment combination that significantly reduced Typha stems and in all but one combination that reduced Typha cover (Tables 4 and 5). More importantly, the wick treatment combined with cutting was the only treatment that significantly reduced Typha stems without other secondary treatments (i.e., spraying or tilling). In the Meadow Zone, some combinations of cutting and wicking significantly reduced Typha stem counts (C1W1, C1W12, C12W12) and Typha cover (C1W12, C12W1, C12W12). Combined cutting and wicking was also effective in the Cattail Zone, where C1W1 reduced Typha stems, and C12W1 reduced cover. Although C12W1 also reduced stem counts in both zones, the results were not significant. The wicking treatment was applied in late summer, thereby allowing the herbicide to be absorbed by the plant and eventually into the rhizomes. For effective control, Cole (1985) noted the importance of applying herbicides later in the year, which is when cattails are actively metabolizing and transporting carbohydrates to their rhizomes. Herbicide has been shown to be effective in previous modeling and field studies (Lawrence et al. 2016; Elgersma et al. 2017).
Less Effective Treatment Combinations
Treatments involving only cutting in year 1 (C1) or cutting and spraying in year 1 (C1S1) were not successful in reducing either Typha stem counts or percent cover and even resulted in increases of both in the Cattail Zone. The increase is likely because cutting did not stress the rhizome and may only have served to increase sunlight penetration. Spraying was ineffective because, during early summer, Typha is not re-establishing carbohydrate reserves in the rhizomes. Treatments C12 and C12S12 were not effective in the Cattail Zone, but the second year of treatment did reduce Typha in the Meadow Zone, so perhaps a second year of cutting was more effective at slightly drier elevations.
In the Cattail Zone, the tilling treatment, combined with the other treatments, had variable success at reducing Typha stems and cover but was effective only when applied in combination with wicking. An individual Typha genet may be several square meters in size (Travis et al. 2010, 2011). Therefore, any treatment method that targets only individual Typha ramets or fails to isolate treated rhizomes is not likely to be effective. In this study, T-treatment tilling was conducted blindly by feeling for rhizomes with a trenching shovel and then slicing the rhizome around each ramet. In most cases, the rhizome surrounding an individual ramet was isolated, but likely not in all cases. Cutting cattail ramets in the C treatment may only have affected a fraction of the larger Typha organism that could extend well beyond the treatment plots via the extensive rhizome system. The uncut stems outside the plots are part of the larger Typha genet and supply carbohydrates to the rhizome system.
Outlier Treatment Combinations
Despite the apparent importance of the wicking treatment, several treatment combinations that did include wicking failed to reduce Typha stem counts and/or cover significantly in one or both of the zones, perhaps because individual replicate blocks showed little or no response due to environmental conditions. For example, Meadow Zone block 5 was slightly higher in elevation than the other blocks, and cattails were initially less dense all across block 5 in response to the lower soil moisture (Wilcox et al. 2008). Thus, there were fewer regrowth Typha ramets to wick with herbicide, and the underlying rhizomes, which could extend beyond the treatment plots, were not treated as effectively. Block 5 showed no significant reduction in Typha stems across all treatment combinations in the Meadow Zone. In the Cattail Zone, block 2 was slightly lower in elevation and had increased percent soil moisture, which apparently affected treatment efficacy. Across all treatment combinations in the Cattail Zone, block 2 showed no significant reduction in Typha stems.
Sedge/Grass Response
Reduction in percent cover of Typha leads to the expectation of increases in percent cover of sedge/grass meadow species at a site such as Kents Creek. In the Meadow Zone, Carex lacustris decreased and Calamagrostis canadensis increased in plots of all treatment combinations and control plots, suggesting that the resultant habitat following pre-study cutting of standing dead Typha favored Calamagrostis (Costello 1936; Ashworth 1997). In the wetter Cattail Zone, C. lacustris increased substantially in plots of all treatments and controls, and C. canadensis increased moderately. These results in both zones suggest that, rather than treatments, the positive response of sedge/grass meadow species was related to opening of the canopy during preliminary cutting and removal of cattail litter to set up the study (van der Valk 1986; Farrer and Goldberg 2009; Vaccaro et al. 2009; Hall and Zedler 2010). Carex lacustris was favored under wetter conditions in the Cattail Zone (Ashworth 1997; Yetka and Galatowitsch 1999).
Treatment Recommendations
The findings of this study suggest the possibility of an effective treatment for Typha control in Lake Ontario wetlands and other applicable locations where water-level manipulation is not possible. Cattail litter from previous years’ growth should first be reduced prior to the growing season to open the canopy for sedge/grass species. New cattail ramets should then be cut when carbohydrate reserves in rhizomes are minimized (late June to early July) and followed with wicking of the resprouted stems with herbicide in late August to early September. The cutting and wicking treatments should be implemented for at least two consecutive years. If funds and/or personnel are available, follow-up application of cutting and wicking treatments in additional years to reduce or eliminate surviving cattails would be advisable. The spray treatment and tilling do not seem effective without wicking and are not recommended.
Treatments performed on small scales, such as in this study, are feasible with a small group of workers; however, all Typha stems must be treated to ensure that the entire genet is targeted, rather than just a few ramets of the larger organism. Cutting with a steel-blade trimmer is labor- and time-intensive, but it is the most effective way to cut cattails without heavy machinery that is often impractical in saturated/inundated conditions.
In larger areas, cattail litter could be mowed in winter using a tractor on substantial, thick ice; in spring, a brush-hog attached to a long-arm excavator operating on mats made from railroad ties could be used. Controlled burns are another option in areas with acceptable adjacent land use and adequate access for control equipment and personnel (Ponzio et al. 2004; Tian et al. 2010). To cut new growth of cattails in summer, a Marshmaster © tracked-amphibious vehicle equipped with a brush hog can mow in places a conventional tractor cannot go. Wicking of Typha with glyphosate (Rodeo) should only be done by hand if other native vegetation is present. In Typha stands lacking native understory vegetation, herbicide could be applied to resprouted cattails with backpack sprayers. For large monocultures of Typha, the Marshmaster can be equipped with spraying equipment to apply herbicide more quickly.
In anticipation of the new Plan 2014 for regulation of Lake Ontario water levels (IJC 2014) that was approved in December 2016 and went into effect in January 2017, large wetland restoration projects on NYS Department of Environmental Conservation lands on the south shore of the lake were initiated using these methods. The restoration areas were 6.5, 1.7, 4.25, and 1.7 ha in size. Equipment used consisted of brush hogs, long-arm excavators, a Marshmaster, and steel-blade trimmers. Herbicide was hand-wicked under contract by an approved herbicide-application firm within a few days at each site. Post-treatment data collection at all of these restoration sites is on-going. Conclusions drawn from this study and these on-site applications will provide land managers with a cattail-management strategy that may effectively reduce the size and density of cattail stands that have taken over Lake Ontario wetlands and should aid in restoration of sedge/grass meadow communities that have been lost (Wilcox et al. 2008). Cattail invasion is rampant in wetlands throughout the Great Lakes (e.g., Friezwyk et al. 2007; Frieswyk and Zedler 2007; Lishawa et al. 2010) and elsewhere (Galatowitsch et al. 1999), so this strategy may have very broad applications.
References
Ashworth SM (1997) Comparison between restored and reference sedge meadow wetlands in south-central Wisconsin. Wetlands 17:518–527
Ball JP (1990) Influence of substantial flooding depth on cattail control by burning and mowing. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 28:32–36
Beule JD (1979) Control and management of cattails in southeastern Wisconsin wetlands. Technical Bulletin No. 112, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Biesboer DD (1984) Seasonal variation in nitrogen fixation, associated microbial populations, and carbohydrates in roots and rhizomes of Typha latifolia (Typhaceae). Canadian Journal of Botany 62:1965–1967
Boers AM, Veltman RLD, Zedler JB (2007) Typha x glauca dominance and extended hydroperiod constrain restoration of wetland diversity. Ecological Engineering 29:232–244
Cole DJ (1985) Mode of action of glyphosate - a literature analysis. In: Grossbard E, Atkinson D (eds) The herbicide glyphosate. Butterworth, London, pp 48–74
Costello DF (1936) Tussock meadows in southeastern Wisconsin. Botanical Gazette 97:610–648
Desgranges JL, Ingram J, Drolet B, Morin J, Savage C, Borcard D (2006) Modelling wetland bird response to water-level changes in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River hydrosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113:329–365
Elgersma KJ, Martina JP, Goldberg DE, Currie WS (2017) Effectiveness of cattail (Typha spp.) management techniques depends on exogenous nitrogen inputs. Elementa 5:19. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.147
Farrell JM (2001) Reproductive success of sympatric northern pike and muskellunge in an upper St. Lawrence River bay. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:796–808
Farrer EC, Goldberg DE (2009) Litter drived ecosystem and plant community changes in cattail invasion. Ecological Applications 19:398–412
Frieswyk CB, Zedler JB (2007) Vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands: deviation from the historical cycle. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:366–380
Friezwyk CB, Johnston CA, Zedler JB (2007) Identifying and characterizing dominant plants as indicator of community condition. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33(special issue 3):125–135
Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness of wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 19:733–755
Gertz AK, Eisenbach J, Walker GK (1994) SEM identification of Michigan cattails, Typha latifolia and Typha angustifoilia, and their hybrid, Typha x glauca. Michigan Botanist 33:27–36
Gertzen EL, Doka SE, Minns CK, Moore JE, Bakelaar C (2012) Effects of water levels and water-level regulation on the supply of suitable spawning habitat for eight fish guilds in the bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 15:397–409
Grossman RB, Reinsch TG (2002) Methods of soil analysis, ch 2. In: Dane JH, Clarke TG (eds) SSSA book series: 5 methods of soil analysis. Soil Science Society of America, Madison
Hall SJ, Zedler JB (2010) Constraints on sedge meadow self-restoration in urban wetlands. Restoration Ecology 18:671–680
Hellsten S, Dieme C, Mbengue M, Janauer GA, den Hollander N, Pieterse AH (1999) Typha control efficiency of a weed-cutting boat in the Lac de Guiers iin Senegal: a preliminary study on mowing speed and re-growth capacity. Hydrobiologia 415:249–255
IJC (2014) Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Plan 2014: protecting against extreme water levels, restoring wetlands, and preparing for climate change. International Joint Commission, Ottawa
Kostecke RM, Smith LM, Hands HM (2004) Vegetation response to cattail management in Cheyenne bottoms, Kansas. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 42:39–45
Lawrence BA, Lishawa SC, Rodriguez Y, Tuchman NC (2016) Herbicide management of invasive cattail (Typha x glauca) increases porewater nutrient concentrations. Wetlands Ecology and Management 24:457–467
Linde AF, Janisch T, Smith D (1976) Cattail – the significance of growth, phenology, and carbohydrate storage to its control and management. Technical Bulletin No. 94, Department of Natural Resources, Madison
Lishawa SC, Albert DA, Tuchman NC (2010) Water-level decline promotes Typha x glauca establishment and vegetation change in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:1086–1096
Lishawa SC, Lawrence BA, Albert DA, Tuchman NC (2015) Biomass harvest of invasive Typha promotes plant diversity in a Great Lakes coastal wetland. Restoration Ecology 23:228–237
Mallik AU, Wein RW (1986) Response of a Typha marsh community to draining, flooding, and seasonal burning. Canadian Journal of Botany 64:2136–2143
Nelson NF, Dietz RH (1966) Cattail control methods in Utah. Publication No. 66-2, Utah State Department of Fish and Game, Vernal
Newman S, Schuette J, Grace JB, Rutchey K, Fontaine T, Reddy KR, Pietrucha M (1998) Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany 60:265–280
NOAA (2012) Great Lakes water levels dashboard. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/dashboard/GLWLD.html
Osland MJ, Gonzalez Z, Richardson CJ (2011) Restoring diversity after cattail expansion: disturbance, resilience, and seasonality in a tropical dry wetland. Ecological Applications 21:715–728
Ponzio KJ, Miller SJ, Lee MA (2004) Long-term effects of prescribed fire on Cladium jamaicense Crantz and Typha domingensis Pers. densities. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12:123–133
Sojda RS, Solberg KL (1993) Management and control of cattails. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 3.4.13
Steenis JH, Smith LP, Cofer HP (1959) Studies on cattail management in the northeast. Transactions of the Northeast Wildlife Conference 10:149–155
Storer DA (1984) A simple high sample volume ashing procedure for determining soil organic matter. Soil Science Plant Analysis 15:759–772
Tian H, Xu X, Miao S, Sindhoj E, Beltran BJ, Pan Z (2010) Modeling ecosystem responses to prescribed fire in a phosphorus-enriched Everglades wetland: I. phosphorus dynamics and cattail recovery. Ecological Modelling 221:1252–1266
Toner J, Farrell JM, Mead JV (2010) Muskrat abundance responses to water-level regulation within freshwater coastal wetlands. Wetlands 30:211–219
Travis SE, Marburger JE, Windels S, Kubatova B (2010) Hybridization dynamics of invasive cattail (Typhaceae) stands in the western Great Lakes region of North America: a molecular analysis. Journal of Ecology 98:7–16
Travis SE, Marburger JE, Windels S, Kubatova B (2011) Clonal structure of invasive cattail (Typhaceae) stands in the upper midwest region of the US. Wetlands 31:221–228
Vaccaro LE, Bedford BL, Johnston CA (2009) Litter accumulation promotes dominance of invasive species of cattails (Typha spp.) in Lake Ontario wetlands. Wetlands 29:1036–1048
van der Valk AG (1986) The impact of litter and annual plants on recruitment from the seed bank of a lacustrine wetland. Aquatic Botany 24:13–26
van der Valk AG, Davis CB (1978) The role of seed banks in the vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology 59:322–335
Weller MW (1975) Studies of cattail in relation to management for marsh wildlife. Iowa State Journal of Research 49:383–412
Wilcox DA (2012) Response of wetland vegetation to the post-1986 decrease in Lake St. Clair water levels: seed-bank emergence and beginnings of the Phragmites australis invasion. Journal of Great Lakes Research 38:270–277
Wilcox DA, Ray G (1989) Using living mat transplants to restore a salt-impacted bog (Indiana). Restoration and Management Notes 7(1):39
Wilcox DA, Xie Y (2007) Predicting wetland plant community responses to proposed water-level-regulation plans for Lake Ontario: GIS-based modeling. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:751–773
Wilcox DA, Xie Y (2008) Predicted effects of proposed new regulation plans on sedge/grass meadows of Lake Ontario. Journal of Great Lakes Research 34:745–754
Wilcox DA, Apfelbaum SI, Hiebert RD (1984) Cattail invasion of sedge meadows following hydrologic disturbance in the Cowles bog wetland complex, Indiana dunes National Lakeshore. Wetlands 4:115–128
Wilcox DA, Kowalski KP, Hoare HL, Carlson ML, Morgan HN (2008) Cattail invasion of sedge/grass meadows in Lake Ontario: photointerpretation analysis of sixteen wetlands over five decades. Journal of Great Lakes Research 34:301–323
Wisheu IC, Keddy PA (1992) Competition and centrifugal organization of plant communities: theory and tests. Journal of Vegetation Science 3:147–156
Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha x glauce? Wetlands 22:509–521
Yetka LA, Galatowitsch SM (1999) Factors affecting revegetation of Carex lacustris and Carex stricta from rhizomes. Restoration Ecology 7:162–171
Acknowledgments
We thank Brad Mudrzynski, John Bateman, and Alexander Healy for assistance in setting up the treatment plots, Taylor Ouderkirk for taking water-table and soil-moisture measurements, Brad Mudrzynski for statistical advice, and John Bateman for preparing tables and figures. Suggestions made by two anonymous reviewers and the Associate Editor are greatly appreciated.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilcox, D.A., Buckler, K. & Czayka, A. Controlling Cattail Invasion in Sedge / Grass Meadows. Wetlands 38, 337–347 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-017-0971-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-017-0971-8