Phragmites australis management in the United States: 40 years of methods and outcomes

Abstract

We reviewed all available studies on Phragmites australis management in the United States. Our results show that there is a heavy emphasis on herbicides to manage Phragmites, relative to other methods, and a lack of information on what types of plant communities establish once Phragmites is removed. Our model of Phragmites establishment and reproduction describes the invasion as a symptom of watershed-scale land use and disturbance. We advocate more holistic approaches to control and management that focus on improving water quality and minimizing human disturbance to deter future invasion and improve resilience of native plant communities.

Management of invasive Phragmites australis in the Adirondacks: a cautionary tale about prospects of eradication

“…This finding is supported by others (Lombard et al 2012;Martin and Blossey 2013b) and it is likely that eradication will be even more elusive in areas with high patch connectivity (Chambers et al 1999;Kulmatiski et al 2010;McCormick et al 2010;Kettenring et al 2012Kettenring et al , 2016Hazelton et al 2014) or in areas with longer invasion histories. For example, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has developed a management prioritization tool (MIDEQ 2014) using multiple ecological, human values, and feasibility criteria where populations covering \100 m 2 are assigned a score of 9 and areas of 4000-80,000 m 2 a score of 5, with sites scoring higher receiving priority for management.…”

“…It has long been a concern to many scientists (Blossey 1999;Downey 2011Downey , 2014) that published evidence on unintended impacts of NIS management, whether biological, mechanical, physical or chemical, is almost entirely absent (Reid et al 2009;Buckley and Han 2014;Foxcroft et al 2014;Blossey 2016b) including information on outcomes of P. australis management (Hazelton et al 2014). For example, half a million ha of public lands were sprayed with herbicide in the US in 2010 alone to reduce populations of non-indigenous plants with practically no information provided on outcomes (Wagner et al 2017).…”

“…In these areas, suppression and containment strategies may be warranted, but potential project benefits need to be weighed against significant drawbacks. Management of large P. australis populations can divert conservation resources from other projects, have questionable efficacy, and may tax society beyond what will be an acceptable long-term commitment (Martin and Blossey 2013b;Hazelton et al 2014). At a minimum, outcome assessments of management are essential to evaluate economic and ecological costs and benefits of this approach.…”

“…The species is one of the most widespread and successful NIS in North America (Chambers et al 1999;Kettenring et al 2012;Saltonstall and Meyerson 2016) and has a long history of management (Marks et al 1994;Martin and Blossey 2013b;Hazelton et al 2014). Targeting P. australis is usually justified due to its ability to dominate wetland plant communities with widespread anticipated and documented negative impacts on native plant, invertebrate, fish, reptile and bird communities (Benoit and Askins 1999;Able and Hagan 2000;National Research Council 2004;Bolton and Brooks 2010;Kessler et al 2011;Dibble and Meyerson 2016).…”

Phragmites Removal Increases Property Values in Michigan’s Lower Grand River Watershed

“…The State of Michigan (2017) lists Phragmites as an invasive species. The introduced, invasive genotype has darker leaves than its native cousin, has lighter-colored rhizomes, and forms more monotypic stands (Great Lakes Commission 2017) ( A thorough review by Hazelton et al (2014) documented how Phragmites establishment in coastal wetland ecosystems is associated with decreased biodiversity, reduced habitat quality for fish and wildlife, and disrupted biogeochemical cycles. Phragmites also negatively effects human use of coastal and wetland areas.…”