Common reed, common reedgrass, giant reed, phrag, Arundo altissima Benth., Arundo australis Cav., Arundo graeca Link, Arundo isiaca Delile, Arundo maxima Forssk., Arundo occidentalis Sieber ex Schult., Arundo palustris Salisb., Arundo phragmites L., Arundo vulgaris Lam., Cynodon phragmites (L.) Raspail, Oxyanthe phragmites (L.) Nieuwl., Phragmites altissimus (Benth.) Mabille ex Debeaux, Phragmites australis var. berlandieri (E. Fourn.) C.F. Reed, Phragmites australis ssp. maximus (Forssk.) Soó, Phragmites berlandieri E. Fourn., Phragmites capensis Nees, Phragmites caudatus Nees ex Meyen, Phragmites chilensis Steud., 

Leaves and Stems:

Culms (stems) erect; hollow; reed-like; simple; 150–600 cm long; 5-15 mm thick; hollow internodes (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011). Culms are tan in color; ridged or ribbed; have a rougher texture than the native common reed (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).
Leaves are linear to lanceolate-linear; flat; drooping; leaf-blades deciduous at the ligule; 20–60 cm long; 8–32 mm wide with pointed tips (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011). Leaf blade surface smooth; cauline (Clayton et al. 2006). Leaves are blue green and usually darker than the native lineage (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Each leaf consists of a blade and a loose sheath separated ciliate ligules that form minute membranous rims fringed with hairs; 0.2-0.6 mm long (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011). Leaf sheaths adhere tightly to culm throughout the growing season; persistent (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Leaf-blade apex attenuates; filiform (Clayton et al. 2006).

Flower-head and Flowers:

Inflorescence a panicle; bearing juvenile spikelets at emergence (Clayton et al. 2006). Panicles are oblong, purplish when young, straw colored at maturity; 15-50 cm long; 6-20 cm wide (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011). Primary panicle branches divided; bearing spikelets almost to the base Clayton et al. 2006). Spikelets solitary; pedicelled (Clayton et al. 2006). Pedicels are filiform (Clayton et al. 2006). Spikelets comprising 3–11 florets; with diminished florets at the apex (Clayton et al 2006, Klein 2011). Spikelets cuneate; laterally compressed; 10–18 mm long; stalked with 6-10 mm long hairs on the stalks; breaking up at maturity (Clayton et al. 2006). Floret callus elongated; 1–1.25 mm long; bearded; obtuse. Glumes are paired; persistent; shorter than spikelets; gaping (Clayton et al. 2006). Lower glume lanceolate; 3–7 mm long; 0.5–0.6 length of upper glume; membranous; without keels; 3–5 veined. Lower glume apex acute. Upper glume lanceolate; 5–10 mm long; without keels; 3–5 veined (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011). Upper glume apex acute (Clayton et al. 2006). Basal florets are sterile florets are male with palea; persist on panicle (Clayton et al. 2006). Lemma are glabrous; lanceolate; 8–15 mm long; membranous; acuminate; with somewhat in-rolled margins. Lower lemmas are unawned and upper lemmas are awned; Lemma apex acuminate (Clayton et al, 2006, Klein 2011). Palea present; with scaberulous keels (Clayton et al. 2006). Flowers typically occur in August and September and form bushy panicles that are usually purple or golden in color with 2 lodicules, 3 anthers, and a glabrous ovary (Clayton et al. 2006, Klein 2011).

Fruit is a caryopsis with an adherent pericarp (Clayton et al. 2006). Seeds     are 2 to 3 mm long (Klein 2011). As seeds mature, the panicles begin to look “fluffy” due to the hairs in the spikelet on the rachilla, and they take on a grey sheen (Saltonstall 2005).

Other Features:

Below ground, Phragmites australis forms a dense network of roots and rhizomes which can go down up to two meters in depth to reach deep ground water (MA DCR 2002). The plant spreads horizontally by sending out underground rhizomes and over ground runners which can grow 10 or more feet in a single growing season if conditions are optimal (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Distinguishing Between Native and Non-native Phragmites australis:

Many morphological characteristics can be used to distinguish native Phragmites australis subsp. americanus from the introduced lineage Phragmites australis subsp. australis. However, there are many overlaps in characteristics making it necessary to look at multiple factors when making a determination based on morphology. The following characteristics should NOT be used to distinguish populations in southern areas (California to the Gulf of America) where the Gulf coast type may be present as it is very similar in appearance to the introduced lineage (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Growth Forms:

Introduced Phragmites australis subsp. australis typically forms denser stands than the native Phragmites australis subsp. americanus, the introduced subspecies stands are also more likely to include dead stems from the previous year’s growth (MNFI 2016, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Introduced Phragmites is more likely to form monocultures, outcompeting and excluding other plant species. The native Phragmites, is much less robust, typically occurring in low density stands, and is frequently found with other native plants but it can occasionally occur in very dense stands more typical of the introduced form when enriched with nutrients (MNFI 2016, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Leaves:

Leaves of the invasive subspecies are a bluish gray-green, while those of the native lineage are typically a lighter yellow-green (MNFI 2016, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). This is easiest to see when they grow side-by-side (MNFI 2016).

Leaf Sheaths:

The leaf sheaths of the introduced Phragmites adhere more tightly to the culm and persist as long as it remains standing, whereas those of the native lineage adhere less tightly and peel back eventually dropping off the culm once the leaf dies particularly at the lower nodes exposing the stem below (MNFI 2016, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Culms and Rhizomes:

Culms of the introduced lineage are rigid and have a rougher texture than the native, which is usually smooth and shiny (MNFI 2016). Culms of the native lineage are more likely to be red, typically around the nodes and where the leaf sheaths have been lost. Whereas the culms of the non-native lineage are usually a dull tan color (MNFI 2016). However, non-native Phragmites has stolons that can grow up to 50 feet or more in a season and may be red, also a little red may occasionally be seen on the culms of the introduced lineage but it is usually limited to lower nodes, which may lead to confusion (MNFI 2016, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Little black spots are sometimes found on the culms of the native lineage, which are caused by a native fungus that has not yet adapted to the introduced form (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). The culms of the introduced form may have a sooty like mildew but it does not have the distinctive black fungal spots (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Rhizomes of the native subspecies rarely exceed 15 mm in diameter and are a darker yellow than the introduced lineage (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Ligules:

The ligule of the introduced lineage is typically less than 1 mm (0.4-0.9 mm) in length. Ligules of the native are more than 1 mm (1-1.7 mm) (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). The native Phragmites is less sturdy and therefore its ligule is more likely to shred and fray by midsummer (MNFI 2016).

Glumes:

For the introduced lineage, the upper glume ranges in size from 4.5-7.5 mm, with most being <6 mm and the lower glume ranges in size from 2.5-5.0 mm, most being <4 mm; the native subspecies has an upper glume ranges in size from 5.5-11.5 mm, with most being >6 mm and lower glume is ranges in size from 3.5-6.5 mm, with most being >4 mm (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Habitats:

Introduced Phragmites is typically found in ditches, disturbed sites, and can tolerate saline habitats. In the Great Lakes basin, it is frequently found on shorelines (MNFI 2016). The native lineage is usually found in fens, sedge meadow, river banks and shores, and the Great Lake shores (MNFI 2016).

Growing Seasons:

Introduced Phragmites begins growing earlier in the season and continues later in the fall than does the native lineage (MNFI 2016).

Phragmites australis subsp. australis is a hardy species that can survive and proliferate in a wide range of environmental conditions, but prefers the wetland-upland interface (Avers et al. 2014). It grows on most soil textures from fine clay to sandy loams and is somewhat tolerant of saline or alkaline conditions (ISSG 2011) and so it is often found at the upper edges of estuaries and on other wetlands (such as grazing marshes) that are occasionally inundated by the sea. It is most often found on disturbed sites with altered hydrology, sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment. The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) has designated Phragmites australis to be a 'FACW', which is roughly equivalent to a 75% chance of this plant occurring in wetlands (USDA, NRCS 2016). Phragmites can tolerate anoxic conditions, and high salinity in soils, and a wide range of pH from 3.9-8.6 (Fofonoff et al. 2015). Phragmites can also tolerate a wide range of temperatures, but shoots are killed off by severe frost events (Haslam 1972). Below ground, introduced Phragmites forms a dense network of roots and rhizomes that can extend downward over a meter (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Along rivers and coastal shorelines, fragments of rhizomes transported from distant infested sites can settle in new spots and become rooted (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Rhizome fragments may also be moved by heavy machinery (Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Age and Growth:

Introduced Phragmites has an average lifetime of 4.5 years, but may live up to 6 years, when longevity is defined as the lifetime of an individual rhizome, but due to its clonal growth abilities, stands have been known to survive for 1000’s of years (Haslam 1972). Vegetative spread by below-ground rhizomes can result in dense stands that have more than 200 shoots/m2 (Haslam 1972).

Reproduction:

Introduced Phragmites australis reproduces primarily clonally through the production and fragmentation of underground rhizomes, but is capable of sexual reproduction through seeds (Fofonoff et al. 2015). Phragmites is wind-pollinated; cross pollination with other plants is probably most common, but self-pollination or agamospermy may occur (Gucker 2008). Flowering starts in late July (Fofonoff et al. 2016). Seeds are primarily dispersed by wind in the fall and winter months (Fofonoff et al. 2015, Haslem 1972). However, they can also be transported on birds, or by water, via waterways or by flooding (Haslam 1972). Seed set is highly variable, with germination rates that are typically low (Haslam 1972), though mature plants may produce as many as 2,000 seeds annually (Avers et al. 2014). Some sources have even reported as many as 1000 seeds per every inflorescence (Haslam 1972). Local propagation is largely to be considered achieved through vegetative reproduction with seeds responsible for new colonization events (Mark et al. 1994). Plants growing in harsh environments may not be able to flower, so the only mode of reproduction is vegetative (Haslam 1972). Germination takes place on exposed moist soils in spring, at temperatures above 10 C (March-April) (Fofonoff et al. 2015). Water depths greater than 5 cm (2 in) generally prevent germination (Marks et al. 1994). After germination a rhizome takes 2-4 years to flower for the first time (Haslam 1971).

Along rivers and coastal shorelines, fragments of rhizomes transported from distant infested sites can settle in new spots and become rooted (Swearingen and Saltonstall, 2010). Rhizome fragments may also be moved by heavy machinery (Swearingen and Saltonstall, 2010).

Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

Environmental	Socioeconomic	Beneficial

The leaves and stems of Phragmites have poor nutritional value and few organisms feed on it in North America, so replacement of native vegetation by the less nutritious Phragmites could have negative consequences for herbivores (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2023). Larval and juvenile fish seem to be the most negatively affected by Phragmites (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2023). The species produces abundant litter which can reduce the mobility of juvenile fish.

Phragmites displaces native plant species including sedges, rushes, and cattails; and reduces wildlife habitat diversity, resulting in loss of food and shelter for native wildlife (Avers et al. 2010). In Ontario, Canada, Blanding Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) avoided nesting in Phragmites  patches thus reducing the amount of suitable nesting habitat available in an invaded marsh areas (Markle and Chow-Fraser, 2018). Its success may also be attributed to allelopathy; Phragmites releases gallic acid, which is degraded by ultraviolet light to produce mesoxalic acid, exposing susceptible plants and seedlings with two harmful toxins (Rudrappa 2009). Furthermore, Phragmites alters wetland hydrology through increased evaporation and trapping of sediments, causing marsh soils to dry out (Avers et al. 2010, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010). Phragmites also impacts nutrient levels; when meadow marsh were replaced with Phragmites in Long Point peninsula, Ontario, Canada, the stocks of Ca, P, K, N, Mg, and C all increased significantly with a mean increase ranging from 103-188% (Yickin and Rooney, 2019).

Phragmites australis has a moderate socio-economic impact in the Great Lakes.

Tall, dense stands of the introduced Phragmites impede shore access, as penetration of a stand of introduced Phragmites can not only be difficult but can also result in abrasions from the sharp-edged vegetation (Avers et al., 2010, USFWS, 2007). Recreational value for birdwatchers, walkers, naturalists, boaters, and hunters is further diminished through reduction of native fish and wildlife populations (USFWS 2007). Such use impairment and restricted shoreline view also reduce property values (Avers et al. 2010).

In addition to economic impacts, the introduced Phragmites poses a risk to human life and property. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) considers Phragmites to be a safety hazard, as its height and dense growth may block signs and view of access roads, drives, curves, etc. (B. Batt, MDOT, pers. comm.). During its dormant season, when dry biomass is high, the introduced common reed also creates a potentially serious fire hazard to structures (Avers et al., 2010, Swearingen and Saltonstall 2010).

Phragmites australis has a high beneficial effect in the Great Lakes.

As a wetland plant, Phragmites improves water quality by filtration and nutrient removal (Ailstock, 2004). Phragmites provides food and habitat for some organisms and serves to stabilize soils against erosion. Bobolink and sparrows eat its seeds, while numerous insects eat the vegetation. Moreover, many insects, birds (including yellowthroat, marsh wren, salt marsh sparrow, least bittern, red-winged blackbird, and some wading birds), and muskrats use Phragmites as shelter or nest material (Kiviat, 2010).

Regulation table last updated 7/05/2022. Always check federal, state/provincial, tribal and local regulations directly forthe most up-to-date information.

Control:

Few control techniques for Phragmites australis subsp. australis are fully effective used alone, and reinvasion is likely when the management strategy is not maintained. Which control methods should be used for a particular site will depend on the current conditions and management goals. Effective control is likely to require multiple treatments using a combination of methods. If a population can be controlled soon after it has established chances of success are much higher because the below-ground rhizome network will not be as extensive. It is often necessary to do repeated treatments for several years to prevent any surviving rhizomes from re-sprouting (Avers et al. 2014).

Biological
At this time no means of biological control are approved in the United States for eradicating Phragmites australis subsp. australis infestations. Literature reveals an abundance of herbivores on Phragmites outside North America, particularly in Europe (Tewksbury et al., 2002). Researchers have found 201 species (164 insects, 7 mites, and 30 fungi) associated with Phragmites outside North America, and there appear to be several promising biological control candidate species from Europe (Tewksbury et al., 2002). Researchers at Cornell University have been studying several of these insects native to Europe as potential biocontrol agents (Blossey, 2007 and Blossey et al., 2002). Based on the biology and ecology of Phragmites in North America European rhizome feeders are being given the highest priority as a biological control agent because it is anticipated that attack of below ground rhizomes will kill aboveground shoots, therefore reducing storage reserves and recovery potential, and disconnecting rhizomes, further reducing the competitive ability of Phragmites (Tewksbury et al., 2002). None are currently an option available to land managers, because some prospective control agents may do greater damage to native lineage of Phragmites than the invasive (Silliman et al., 2014). The moth species A. geminipuncta and A. neurica have been shown to be a potential biocontrol for Phragmites showing a strong preference to invasive over native species and minimal to no impact on plants outside of the genus (Blossey et al., 2018). A petition to release the two moth species was approved in Canada in 2019. The first biocontrol program using A. neurica and L. geminipuncta began in southern Ontario in summer 2019 (Ontario Invasive Plant Council, 2023).  Current biocontrol strategies do pose a significant risk to native species (Cronin et al., 2016). Other studies have indicated that it is possible to control invasive Phragmites in North America via purposeful livestock grazing and that this method has a high potential to suppress its impact on native plant communities (Silliman et al., 2014).  This is a viable option because livestock can persist over a relatively short time period (i.e., weeks to months) on a Phragmites-centered diet without negatively impacting their health (Silliman et al., 2014). While long-term, low-intensity grazing by goats and cattle has shown to decrease Phragmites density, it does not impact the root system. In fact, grazing at the wrong time of the year can increase Phragmites stem density (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, 2015). It is also important to consider and investigate the potential for livestock grazing to impact non-target organisms and ecosystem functions (Silliman et al., 2014).

Physical
Mechanical methods must always be used carefully to avoid stimulating growth of Phragmites (Avers et al. 2014). Prescribed burning in combination with herbicide treatment, may be an effective control technique (Saltonstall 2005). Burns should be conducted the year following herbicide treatment, either in late summer (mid-July through August) or winter (January until prior to spring green-up (Avers et al. 2014). Burning in the winter can also be effective prior to herbicide treatment as it improves herbicide coverage by reducing the amount of standing dead biomass. Plants should not be burned in the spring or summer before flowering as this may stimulate growth (Getsinger et al. 2007). Some experts suggest that use of fire alone may stimulate rhizome growth and cause the remaining population to become more vigorous (Avers et al. 2014). Burning after herbicide treatment reduces standing dead stem and litter biomass, which may help to encourage germination of native plants in the following growing season (Saltonstall 2005). Burning also makes it easier to locate and re-treat areas of regrowth (Avers et al. 2014). A secondary treatment of rolling, burning, or cutting can increase litter decomposition rates, increasing the ability of native plants to establish (Yuckin et al., 2022).

Mechanical control (e.g., weed whips, mowers, brush hogs, flail mowers, hand cutting) may be effective at slowing the spread of established stands but is unlikely to be successful in eradicating a stand if not used in concert with herbicide application (Saltonstall 2005). Mechanical cutting and removal of Phragmites may be beneficial in the early summer before seeds have matured to prevent unwanted spread (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative).  Mechanical control should be conducted to minimize soil disruption, which encourages re-sprouting (Avers et al. 2014). Excavation of sediments may be effective at control but if small fragments of root are left in the soil, they may lead to reestablishment. Once an area has been mowed, thatch should be raked, bagged and disposed of in an appropriate location to prevent seed dispersal and to allow sunlight to reach the soil surface (Avers et al. 2014). This allows the native seedbank an advantage in the subsequent growing season. When used in combination, mechanical control should not occur until at least 2 weeks after an herbicide treatment to maximize mobilization of the chemical to the root/rhizome system (Avers et al. 2014). Care should be taken to clean all equipment used for mechanical removal prior to transportation from the treatment site (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2015). Mechanical control of Phragmites works best in areas where it is fully inundated for several months in the 2 year period after slashing, but if the area is not fully inundated then it can recover almost completely within 10 months (Greet and Rees, 2015).

Cutting Phragmites while it is underwater, known as “cut-to-drown” can also be used as a control method for invasive Phragmites. This method effectively drowns the plant by removing its access to oxygen and can be utilized on large or small scales based on the available machinery. Cutting underwater is most effective during the main growth phase, which occurs in mid-spring to late summer, or in the translocation phase between late summer to mid-fall (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, 2023). 

Flooding stands of Phragmites can be used as part of a multi-method management approach in wetlands where managers have control of water levels. Managers often use this approach in wetlands with installed water management systems such as dikes. Flooding is only an effective management option if the entire stand is underwater for an extended period of time. The amount of water needed to cover Phragmites in a flood varies. It is suggested that water levels be maintained at a minimum of 1.5 meters (~5 feet) above the Phragmites stand, although shallower water depths are likely to still be effective as long as all parts of the plants remain submerged (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011, Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, 2023). It may take anywhere from 2-6 weeks (depending on water clarity) of consistent  flooded conditions for the Phragmites stand to fully die back (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2011, Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2023). Flooding is most effective during Phragmites’ growing phase (mid-spring to late summer). Traditional drawdowns producing mudflats in early summer (as used to control other invasives) encourage the growth of Phragmites and should be conducted with extreme caution if Phragmites is present in the surrounding landscape (Avers et al. 2014). In some cases alternate flooding can even increase Phragmites growth (Li et al., 2017).

Covering cut stems with black plastic blocks light and increases temperature which will eventually kill Phragmites below the plastic, however, the plastic can break down quickly having unintended negative ecological impacts (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, 2015). This method has shown to be effective in small areas that previously received direct sunlight and could be ideal in locations where use of herbicide would impact nearby native plants (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative, 2015). Solarization also reduces seed density after the first year of treatment but the decreases did not continue into future years (Rohal et al., 2021).

Chemical
There are several effective chemical treatments for managing Phragmites, but it is important to be aware of potential secondary invasions that can occur. The treatment of Phragmites at Long Point peninsula in Lake Erie led to a secondary invasion of the invasive species Hydrocharis morsus-ranae (European Frog-bit) (Robichaud and Rooney, 2021). Areas with large, established populations of Phragmites are best restored using herbicides. Chemical control is particularly effective when used in combination with prescribed burns, or other types of mechanical removal (Avers et al. 2014, Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2023).  Summer mowing followed by an herbicide treatment had the highest effect out of 6 tested treatments and created the best conditions for native plant recruitment (Rohal et al., 2019). Chemical techniques need to be carefully applied so that all fragments of a Phragmites stand are killed (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2015). If the entire clone of Phragmites is not killed, then the remaining rhizomes may produce new stems the following year (Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative 2015). It is often necessary to do repeated treatments for several years to prevent any surviving rhizomes from re-sprouting (Avers et al. 2014).

Glyphosate and imazapyr are two broad spectrum herbicides commercially available and known to control Phragmites (Avers et al. 2014). These herbicides are best applied in late summer/early fall after the plant has flowered, either as a cut stump treatment or as a foliar spray (Avers at al. 2014). Together, glyphosate and imazapyr were found to be the only herbicides that resulted in greater than 90% biomass reduction of Phragmites australis in controlled mesocosm studies (Chesier et al. 2012). Herbicide treatments may need to be repeated for several consecutive years before a significant reduction in seed density is observed and to avoid secondary invasions (Rohal et al., 2021 and Jordan, 2022 ). However, it must be noted that these chemicals are nonselective and will impact native plants if they come in contact with the herbicides. It is of the utmost importance to apply these chemicals carefully at the recommended levels. Always read the herbicide label prior to use to determine the appropriate application rate and re-entry times. Improper application of terrestrial formulations in aquatic environments may harm fish and macroinvertebrates and is a violation of federal and state laws. Both herbicides are available in separate formulas for application either on aquatic (wet) or terrestrial (dry) sites (Avers et al. 2014). Glyphosate and imazapyr can be used individually or combined as a control strategy for Phragmites. Visual effects, such as browning or withering of the plants, may not occur for several weeks (Avers et al. 2014). A rope wick application can be better at controlling Phragmites with lower and more targeted application rates reducing environmental contamination (Al-Wagaa et al., 2019).

Imazapyr should be applied to actively growing green foliage after full leaf elongation. If the stand has substantial amounts of old stem tissue, allow new growth to reach approximately 5 feet tall before treatment. Imazapyr is highly effective on controlling Phragmites, as it acts slowly and can remain active in the soil during the following year or more (Aver et al. 2014). Imazapyr may persist actively in the soil for multiple years so it is not recommended for treatment in areas with high floristic quality and/or diverse native vegetation (Avers et al. 2014).

Glyphosate should be applied after plants are in full bloom in late summer (Avers et al. 2014). Glyphosate is not as effective as imazapyr; however, it costs less and has good results with follow-up treatment or where water level management is available (Avers et al. 2014).

Hazelton et al. (2014) reviewed Phragmites literature to see where gaps lie in management of this invasive species. This review suggests that (1) management efforts should be shifted towards restoring native plant communities rather than just eradicating Phragmites stands, since a healthy native plant community can better withstand Phragmites invasion, (2) management needs to switch to watershed-scale efforts in coastal regions and/or larger management units inland as Phragmites are not restricted to the Great Lakes coastline, and (3) wetlands and watersheds should be ranked to identify ecosystems that would most benefit from Phragmites eradication to insure efforts are best utilized.

Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.

For more information on management of invasive Phragmites in the Great Lakes region, plase visit the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative.

Other synonyms: Phragmites communis Trin., Phragmites communis var. berlandieri (E. Fourn.) Fernald, Phragmites communis ssp. berlandieri (E. Fourn.) Á. Löve & D. Löve, Phragmites communis var. flavescens Custer, Phragmites communis var. genuinus Stuck., Phragmites communis var. hispanicus (Nees) K. Richt., Phragmites communis var. isiacus (Delile) Engl., Phragmites communis var. mauritianus (Kunth) Baker, Phragmites communis ssp. maximus (Forssk.) Clayton, Phragmites communis var. variegatus Hitchc. ex L.H. Bailey, Phragmites dioicus Hack. ex Conert, Phragmites dioicus Hack. ex Hicken, Phragmites fissifolius Steud., Phragmites hispanicus Nees, Phragmites isiacus (Delile) Kunth, Phragmites martinicensis Trin. ex Steud., Phragmites mauritianus Kunth, Phragmites maximus (Forssk.) Chiov., Phragmites maximus var. berlandieri (E. Fourn.) Moldenke, Phragmites maximus var. variegatus (Hitchc. ex L.H. Bailey) Moldenke, Phragmites occidentalis Trin. ex Steud., Phragmites phragmites (L.) Speg., Phragmites phragmites (L.) H. Karst., Phragmites vulgaris (Lam.) Crép., Phragmites vulgaris Britton, Sterns & Poggenb., Phragmites vulgaris var. mauritianus (Kunth) T. Durand & Schinz, Phragmites vulgaris ssp. maximus (Forssk.) Chiov., Reimaria diffusa Spreng., Trichoon phragmites (L.) Rendle