Print Report

CEGL001475 Phragmites australis ssp. australis Western Ruderal Wet Meadow

Type Concept Sentence: No Data Available

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: European Common Reed Western Ruderal Wet Meadow

Colloquial Name: Western Ruderal European Common Reed Marsh

Hierarchy Level:  Association

Type Concept: This reed marsh type is found across the west-temperate regions of the United States and Canada. Stands occur in semipermanently flooded marshes, ditches, impoundments, etc. that have often been disturbed by human activity. The vegetation is often variable, as Phragmites australis ssp. australis will often invade into existing natural or semi-natural communities present on the site. Once firmly established, this community is usually strongly dominated by Phragmites australis ssp. australis, with few or no other vascular plants present. In Colorado, this reed marsh often occurs in small wet patches in seeps and backwater areas of large floodplains, around the fringes of irrigation ponds, ditches, and along railroad embankments that have poor drainage. Stands have a dense, 1- to 1.5-m tall herbaceous layer dominated by the perennial graminoid Phragmites australis ssp. australis. Minor cover of associates such as Agrostis stolonifera, Carex spp., Conyza canadensis, Glycyrrhiza lepidota, Iva axillaris, Mentha arvensis, Solidago canadensis, Schoenoplectus acutus, and Typha latifolia may be present.

Diagnostic Characteristics: Tall marsh vegetation dominated by introduced Phragmites australis ssp. australis.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: This vegetation has variable hydrology and is often treated as part of other marshes and meadows. The geographic distribution of the type is arbitrarily limited to Bailey''s Dry and Humid Temperate Domain in western North America (Bailey 1997, 1998). Compare with ~Phragmites australis ssp. australis Eastern Ruderal Marsh (CEGL004141)$$. The two types have now (2017) been better distinguished, both conceptually and nomenclaturally. This type accommodates vegetation dominated by introduced Phragmites australis ssp. australis.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: Graminoids are 1-3 m tall.

Floristics: The vegetation is variable as exotic Phragmites australis ssp. australis will often invade into existing natural or semi-natural communities present on the site. Once firmly established, this community is usually strongly dominated by Phragmites australis ssp. australis with few or no other vascular plants present. Stands have a dense, 1- to 3-m tall herbaceous layer dominated by the perennial graminoid Phragmites australis ssp. australis usually with at least 50% absolute cover. Associated graminoids include Agrostis stolonifera, Carex spp., (such as Carex curatorum), Typha latifolia, Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis (= Juncus balticus), Agrostis gigantea, Elymus canadensis, Equisetum spp., Hordeum jubatum, Muhlenbergia asperifolia, Schoenoplectus acutus (= Scirpus acutus), and Sporobolus contractus. Forbs are diverse and provide low cover; those commonly present include Ambrosia acanthicarpa, Conyza canadensis, Glycyrrhiza lepidota, Eurybia glauca (= Aster glaucodes), Oxytenia acerosa, Iva axillaris, Mentha arvensis, Dichanthelium acuminatum (= Panicum acuminatum), Solidago canadensis, Solidago velutina, and Taraxacum officinale. Introduced species such as Lepidium latifolium and Cirsium arvense may be present and compete well against Phragmites australis in disturbed sites. Some woody species may be present in very low amount; Clematis ligusticifolia, Parthenocissus vitacea, and Rhus trilobata may be present as well.

Dynamics:  Phragmites australis ssp. australis generally requires seasonal flooding in the spring with water table fluctuating from 0.6 m above to 0.6 m below the surface (Johnston 1987). This rhizomatous species can out compete all but the most aggressive weedy species. With heavy disturbance, however, introduced species such as Cirsium arvense or Lepidium latifolium may invade this plant association (Hansen et al. 1995, Von Loh 2000).
Environmental Description:  This association is widespread in the western U.S. and Canada. Elevation ranges from 640-1980 m. Stands occur in temporarily to semipermanently flooded marshes, ditches, impoundments, pond and lake margins, swales, and wet meadows that often have been disturbed by human activity. Sites are usually saturated or flooded during the growing season, but the soil surface may dry out in late summer. Soils are often fine-textured silts and clays. In Colorado and Utah, this reed marsh often occurs in small wet patches in seeps and backwater areas of large floodplains in springs emerging from canyon walls, around the fringes of irrigation ponds, ditches, and along railroad embankments that have poor drainage.
Geographic Range: This reed marsh type is found across the temperate regions of the western United States and Canada, ranging from western North Dakota and Saskatchewan to Oregon, south to California, Utah, Arizona, and Texas. Its distribution is somewhat incomplete as not all states have listed semi-natural types in their state.

Nations: CA,US

States/Provinces:  AB, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MB, MT, ND, NE, NM, NV, OK, ON, OR, SD, SK, TX, UT, WA, WY


Confidence Level: High

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNA

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 2 Shrub & Herb Vegetation Class C02 2
Subclass 2.C Shrub & Herb Wetland Subclass S44 2.C
Formation 2.C.4 Temperate to Polar Freshwater Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Formation F013 2.C.4
Division 2.C.4.Nb Western North American Temperate Freshwater Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Division D031 2.C.4.Nb
Macrogroup 2.C.4.Nb.90 Western North American Ruderal Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Macrogroup M301 2.C.4.Nb.90
Group 2.C.4.Nb.90.a Kentucky Bluegrass - Canadian Horseweed - Canada Thistle Ruderal Marsh, Wet Meadow & Shrubland Group G524 2.C.4.Nb.90.a
Alliance A3847 European Common Reed - Giant Reed - Narrowleaf Cattail Ruderal Marsh Alliance A3847 2.C.4.Nb.90.a
Association CEGL001475 European Common Reed Western Ruderal Wet Meadow CEGL001475 2.C.4.Nb.90.a
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: ? Phragmites australis - Scirpus spp. (Sawyer et al. 2009) [41.061.02]
= Phragmites australis (Sawyer et al. 2009) [41.061.01]
= Phragmites australis (Kittel et al. 1999b)
= Phragmites australis Habitat Type (Hansen et al. 1995)
= Phragmites australis Habitat Type (Hall and Hansen 1997)
= Phragmites australis Herbaceous Vegetation (Carsey et al. 2003a)
= Phragmites australis Western North American Temperate Ruderal Herbaceous Vegetation (Copass and Ramm-Granberg 2016a)
= Phragmites australis Wetland (Baker 1984a)
= Phragmites communis / Carex lacustris Plant Association (Johnston 1987)
< Bulrush - Reed Grass Association (Pool 1914)
< Sandhills Freshwater Marsh (Steinauer and Rolfsmeier 2003)
Concept Author(s): D. Faber-Langendoen

Author of Description: D. Faber-Langendoen, K. Schulz, J. Coles, G. Kittel

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 08-14-17
  • Bailey, R. 1997. Map: Ecoregions of North America (revised). USDA Forest Service in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 1:15,000,000.
  • Bailey, R. G. 1998. Ecoregion map of North America: Explanatory note. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1548, USDA Forest Service. 10 pp.
  • Baker, W. L. 1982a. Vegetation description in Colorado-where are the gaps? Journal of the Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science 14(1):39 (Abstract).
  • Baker, W. L. 1984a. A preliminary classification of the natural vegetation of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 44(4):647-676.
  • Bourgeron, P. S., and L. D. Engelking, editors. 1994. A preliminary vegetation classification of the western United States. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, Western Heritage Task Force, Boulder, CO. 175 pp. plus appendix.
  • Butler, J., D. Crawford, S. Menard, and T. Meyer. 2002. Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge, South Dakota. USGS-USFWS Vegetation Mapping Program. Final report. Technical Memorandum 8260-02-02, Remote Sensing and GIS Group, Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
  • CNHP [Colorado Natural Heritage Program]. 2006-2017. Tracked natural plant communities. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. [https://cnhp.colostate.edu/ourdata/trackinglist/plant_communities/]
  • Carsey, K., G. Kittel, K. Decker, D. J. Cooper, and D. Culver. 2003a. Field guide to the wetland and riparian plant associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO.
  • Clark, D., M. Dela Cruz, T. Clark, J. Coles, S. Topp, A. Evenden, A. Wight, G. Wakefield, and J. Von Loh. 2009. Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Capitol Reef National Park. Natural Resource Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR--2009/187. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 882 pp.
  • Coles, J., D. Cogan, D. Salas, A. Wight, G. Wakefield, J. Von Loh, and A. Evenden. 2008a. Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Dinosaur National Monument. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR-2008/112. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 814 pp.
  • Copass, C., and T. Ramm-Granberg. 2016a. Ebey’s Landing National Historical Reserve vegetation inventory and mapping project. Natural Resource Report NPS/NCCN/NRR--2016/1127. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 194 pp.
  • Evens, J. M., K. Sikes, D. Hastings, and J. Ratchford. 2014. Vegetation alliance descriptions for Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Death Valley National Park and Mojave National Preserve. Unpublished report submitted to USDI National Park Service, Mojave Desert Network Inventory and Monitoring Program. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
  • Greenall, J. A. 1996. Manitoba''s terrestrial plant communities. MS Report 96-02. Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, Winnipeg.
  • Hall, J. B., and P. L. Hansen. 1997. A preliminary riparian habitat type classification system for the Bureau of Land Management districts in southern and eastern Idaho. Riparian and Wetland Research Program, School of Forestry, University of Montana. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin No. 97-11. 381 pp.
  • Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management of Montana''s riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 646 pp. plus posters.
  • Hansen, P., K. Boggs, and R. Pfister. 1991. Classification and management of riparian and wetland sites in Montana. Unpublished draft version prepared for Montana Riparian Association, Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula. 478 pp.
  • Hickson, D., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 2007. Vegetation and land use classification and map of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Prepared for the Bay Delta Region, California Department of Fish and Game by the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 152 pp. plus appendices.
  • Hoagland, B. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: A classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist 45(4):385-420.
  • Hoagland, B. W. 1998c. Oklahoma riparian vegetation. In: A. Fallon and M. Smolen, editors. Riparian area management handbook. Publication number E-952. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
  • IDCDC [Idaho Conservation Data Center]. 2005. Wetland and riparian plant associations in Idaho. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. [http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/tech/CDC/ecology/wetland_riparian_assoc.cfm] (accessed 14 June 2005).
  • Johnston, B. C. 1987. Plant associations of Region Two: Potential plant communities of Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas. R2-ECOL-87-2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Lakewood, CO. 429 pp.
  • Kagan, J. S., J. A. Christy, M. P. Murray, and J. A. Titus. 2004. Classification of native vegetation of Oregon. January 2004. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Portland. 52 pp.
  • Kearsley, M. J. C., K. Green, M. Tukman, M. Reid, M. Hall, T. J. Ayers, and K. Christie. 2015. Grand Canyon National Park-Grand Canyon / Parashant National Monument vegetation classification and mapping project. Natural Resource Report NPS/GRCA/NRR--2015/913. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 75 pp. plus appendices.
  • Keeler-Wolf, T. 2007. Mojave Desert scrub vegetation. Pages 609-656 in: M. G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr, editors. Terrestrial vegetation of California. Third edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  • Keeler-Wolf, T., and M. Vaghti. 2000. Vegetation mapping of Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California. A report to the California Department of Water Resources. California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.
  • Kittel, G., E. Van Wie, M. Damm, R. Rondeau, S. Kettler, A. McMullen, and J. Sanderson. 1999b. A classification of riparian and wetland plant associations of Colorado: A user''s guide to the classification project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO. 70 pp. plus appendices.
  • Kittel, G., R. Rondeau, and S. Kettler. 1995. A classification of the riparian vegetation of the Gunnison River Basin, Colorado. Submitted to Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins. 114 pp.
  • Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: First approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
  • MTNHP [Montana Natural Heritage Program]. 2002b. List of ecological communities for Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Montana State Library, Helena, MT.
  • NHNM [Natural Heritage New Mexico]. No date. Unpublished data on file. Natural Heritage New Mexico, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
  • ONHIC [Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre]. 2018. Unpublished data. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada.
  • Peterson, E. B. 2008. International Vegetation Classification alliances and associations occurring in Nevada with proposed additions. Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Carson City, NV. 348 pp.
  • Pool, R. J. 1914. A study of the vegetation of the sandhills of Nebraska. Minnesota Botanical Studies 4:189-312.
  • Reid, M. S., and M. E. Hall. 2010. Vegetation classification of Grand Canyon National Park. Draft report submitted to National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
  • Rolfsmeier, S. B., and G. Steinauer. 2010. Terrestrial ecological systems and natural communities of Nebraska (Version IV - March 9, 2010). Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, NE. 228 pp.
  • Romme, W. H., K. D. Heil, J. M. Porter, and R. Fleming. 1993. Plant communities of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. USDI National Park Service, Technical Report NPS/NAUCARE/NRTER-93/02. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Northern Arizona University. 37 pp.
  • Salas, D. E., J. Stevens, K. Schulz, M. Artmann, B. Friesen, S. Blauer, E. W. Schweiger, and A. Valdez. 2010b. Vegetation classification and mapping project report: Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. Natural Resource Report NPS/ROMN/NRR--2010/179. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
  • Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento CA. 1300 pp.
  • Steinauer, G., and S. Rolfsmeier. 2003. Terrestrial natural communities of Nebraska. (Version III - June 30, 2003). Nebraska Natural Heritage Program, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln. 163 pp.
  • TNHS [Texas Natural History Survey]. No date. Unpublished data. Texas Natural History Survey, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio.
  • Tendick, A., J. Coles, K. Decker, M. Hall, J. Von Loh, T. Belote, A. Wight, G. Wakefield, and A. Evenden. 2012. Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Canyonlands National Park. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR--2012/577. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
  • Tendick, A., J. Spence, M. Reid, K. Shulz, G. Kittel, K. Green, A. Wight, and G. Wakefield. 2017. Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Rainbow Bridge National Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/NCPN/NRR—2017/1500. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 1464 pp.
  • Von Loh, J. 2000. Draft local descriptions of the vegetation associations of Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. USGS Bureau of Reclamation, Remote Sensing and GIS Group, Denver Federal Center, Denver.
  • Von Loh, J., D. Cogan, K. Schulz, D. Crawford, T. Meyer, J. Pennell, and M. Pucherelli. 2002. USGS-USFWS Vegetation Mapping Program, Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Remote Sensing and GIS Group, Technical Memorandum 8260-02-03. Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO. 225 pp.
  • WNDD [Wyoming Natural Diversity Database]. No date. Unpublished data on file. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
  • Western Ecology Working Group of NatureServe. No date. International Ecological Classification Standard: International Vegetation Classification. Terrestrial Vegetation. NatureServe, Boulder, CO.