## Arundo donax

z INTRODUCTORY

z DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

z BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

z FIRE ECOLOGY

z FIRE EFFECTS

z MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

z REFERENCES



## INTRODUCTORY

SPECIES: Arundo donax

AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION: McWilliams, John D. 2004. Arundo donax. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re search Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (P roducer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/datab ase/feis/ [ 2011, August 10]. FEIS ABBREVIATION: ARUDON

SYNONYMS: N one

N RCS PLANT CODE [ 96 ]: ARDO4

COMMON NAMES: giant reed arundo grass donax

TAXONOMY: z AUTHORSHIP

AND CITATION

z FEIS

ABBREVIATION

z SYNONYMS

z NRCS PLANT

CODE

z COMMON

NAMES

z TAXONOMY

z LIFE FORM

z FEDERAL

LEGAL STATUS

z OTHER STATUS

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, www.forestry ima g es.or g James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, www.forestry ima g es.or g 

### Page 1 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlThe currently accepted scientif ic name of giant reed is Arundo donax L. (Poaceae) [ 13 , 40 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 63 , 69 , 77 , 103 , 105 , 107 ]. One variety of giant reed is recognized in the literature:

A rundo donaxL. var. versicolor (P. Mill) Stokes [ 53 , 107 ].

LIFE FORM: Graminoid

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS: N o special status

OTHER STATUS: Giant reed is listed as a noxious weed in Texas, an exotic plant pest in California, an invasive weed in Hawaii, and as an invasive, exotic pest in Tennessee. See the Invaders or Plants databases for more information.



## DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE

SPECIES: Arundo donax

z GENERALDISTRIBUTION

z ECOSYSTEMS

z STATES/PROVINCES

z BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS

z KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS

z SAF COVER TYPES

z SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES

z HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION: Though accounts in the literaturevary, a review by Bell [ 11 ] indicates giant reed is thought to be native in eastern Asia, and it has been cultivated throughout Asia, southern Europe, northern Africa and the Mi ddle East for thousands of years. In N orth America, it was intentionally introduced from the Medite rranean to the Los Angeles area in California in the early 1800s (Robbins and others 1951, as cited in [ 49 ])[ 28 ], and has been widely planted th roughout the warmer states as an ornamental and for erosion c ontrol along drainage canals [ 49 , 74 ]. It has escaped cultivation as far north as Virginia and Missouri, and abundant wild populations occur along the Rio Grande River [ 74 ] and along ditches, streams, and seeps in arid and cis montane regions of Californ ia (Robbins and others 1951, as cited in [ 49 ]). According to Bell [ 11 ], giant reed is invasive throughout the warmer coastal freshwaters of the Unit ed States from Maryland westward to northern Ca lifornia. Wunderlin [ 107 ] recognizes the variety versicolor as occurring in Florida, and Jones and others [ 53 ] describe that variety as a cultivar. Th e literature contains specifi c references to the occurrence of giant reed in the 4 provinces of Mexico listed below [ 2 , 61 , 82 , 98 ]. Giant reed is likely presen t in other areas of Mexico.

Plants database provides a state distribution map of giant reed in the United States. The following lists include North American ecosystems, habitat t ypes, and forest and range cove r types in which giant reed is known or thought to be invasive, as we ll as some that may be invaded by giant reed following disturbances in which vegetation is killed and/or re moved and/or soil is disturbed (e.g. cultivati on, fire, grazing, herbicide application, flooding)

. Giant reed is a hydrophyte and riparian areas or wetlands within thes e habitats could be subjec t to invasion by giant reed even if the habitat itself is not consider ed a wetland. For example, Nixon and Willett [ 71 ] list giant reed as a plant found within the Trinity River Basin in Texas. Habitats within the basin include cross timbers and pr airies, blackland prairies, post oak ( Quercus stellata ) savannah, pineywoods, and Gulf prairies and marshes. These lists are not necessarily exhaustive. More information is needed regarding incidents and examples of particular ecosystems and plant communities wh ere giant reed is invasive. ECOSYSTEMS [ 38 ]: FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine FRES13 Lobloll y -shortleaf pine 

### Page 2 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlFRES14 Oak-pine FRES15 Oak-hickory FRES16 Oak-gum-cypress FRES17 Elm-ash-cottonwood FRES27 Redwood FRES28 Western hardwoods FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES31 Shinnery FRES32 Texas savanna FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub FRES35 Pinyon-juniper FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES37 Mountain meadows FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands FRES41 Wet grasslands FRES42 Annual grasslands

STATES/PROVINCES: (key to state/province abbreviations) UNITED STATES

MEXICO

BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS [ 12 ]: 3 Southern Pacific Border 4 Sierra Mountains 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont 14 Great Plains KUCHLER [ 60 ] PLANT ASSOCIATIONS: K006 Redwood forest K009 Pine-cypress forest K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland K027 Mesquite bosques K031 Oak-juniper woodland K032 Transition between K031 and K037 K033 Chaparral K034 Montane chaparral K035 Coastal sagebrush K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035 K037 Mountain-mahogany-oak scrub K038 Great Basin sagebrush K039 Blackbrush K040 Saltbush-greasewood K041 Creosote bush K042 Creosote bush- b ur sa g e AL AZ AR CA FL GA HI IL KS KY LA MD MS MO NV NM NC OK SC TN TX UT VA WV PR VI

Chih. Coah. Son. Tamps. 

### Page 3 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlK043 Paloverde-cactus shrub K044 Creosote bush-tarbush K045 Ceniza shrub K048 California steppe K049 Tule marshes K053 Grama-galleta steppe K054 Grama-tobosa prairie K057 Galleta-three awn shrubsteppe K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna K060 Mesquite savanna K061 Mesquite-acacia savanna K062 Mesquite-live oak savanna K065 Grama-buffalo grass K069 Bluestem-grama prairie K070 Sandsage-bluestem prairie K071 Shinnery K072 Sea oats prairie K074 Bluestem prairie K076 Blackland prairie K077 Bluestem-sa cahuista prairie K078 Southern cordgrass prairie K079 Palmetto prairie K080 Marl everglades K082 Mosaic of K074 and K100 K083 Cedar glades K084 Cross Timbers K085 Mesquite-buffalo grass K086 Juniper-oak savanna K087 Mesquite-oak savanna K088 Fayette prairie K089 Black Belt K090 Live oak-sea oats K091 Cypress savanna K092 Everglades K098 Northern floodplain forest K100 Oak-hickory forest K105 Mangrove K111 Oak-hickory-pine K112 Southern mixed forest K113 Southern floodplain forest K114 Pocosin K115 Sand pine scrub K116 Subtropical pine forest SAF COVER TYPES [ 32 ]: 40 Post oak-blackjack oak 42 Bur oak 43 Bear oak 46 Eastern redcedar 51 White pine-chestnut oak 52 White oak-black oak-northern red oak 53 White oak 57 Yellow-poplar 58 Yellow-poplar-eas tern hemlock 59 Yellow-poplar-white oak-northern red oak 60 Beech-sugar maple 61 River birch-sycamore 63 Cottonwood 64 Sassafras-persimmon 65 Pin oak -sweetgum 

### Page 4 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html66 Ashe juniper-redberry (Pinchot) juniper 67 Mohrs (shin) oak 68 Mesquite 69 Sand pine 70 Longleaf pine 71 Longleaf pine-scrub oak 72 Southern scrub oak 73 Southern redcedar 74 Cabbage palmetto 75 Shortleaf pine 76 Shortleaf pine-oak 78 Virginia pine-oak 79 Virginia pine 80 Loblolly pine-shortleaf pine 81 Loblolly pine 82 Loblolly pine-hardwood 83 Longleaf pine-slash pine 84 Slash pine 85 Slash pine-hardwood 87 Sweetgum-yellow-poplar 88 Willow oak-water oak-di amondleaf (laurel) oak 89 Live oak 91 Swamp chestnut oak-cherrybark oak 92 Sweetgum-willow oak 93 Sugarberry-American elm-green ash 94 Sycamore-sweetgum-American elm 95 Black willow 96 Overcup oak-water hickory 97 Atlantic white-cedar 98 Pond pine 100 Pondcypress 101 Baldcypress 102 Baldcypress-tupelo 103 Water tupelo-swamp tupelo 104 Sweetbay-swamp tupelo-redbay 105 Tropical hardwoods 106 Mangrove 110 Black oak 111 South Florida slash pine 221 Red alder 222 Black cottonwood-willow 232 Redwood 235 Cottonwood-willow 239 Pinyon-juniper 240 Arizona cypress 241 Western live oak 242 Mesquite 243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer 246 California black oak 249 Canyon live oak 250 Blue oak-foothills pine 255 California coast live oak SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES [ 85 ]: 201 Blue oak woodland 202 Coast live oak woodland 203 Riparian woodland 204 North coastal shrub 205 Coastal sage shrub 206 Chamise chaparral 207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral 

### Page 5 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral 209 Montane shrubland 210 Bitterbrush 211 Creosote bush scrub 212 Blackbush 213 Alpine grassland 214 Coastal prairie 215 Valley grassland 216 Montane meadows 217 Wetlands 401 Basin big sagebrush 402 Mountain big sagebrush 403 Wyoming big sagebrush 405 Black sagebrush 406 Low sagebrush 408 Other sagebrush types 409 Tall forb 410 Alpine rangeland 411 Aspen woodland 412 Juniper-pinyon woodland 413 Gambel oak 414 Salt desert shrub 415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany 416 True mountain-mahogany 417 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany 418 Bigtooth maple 419 Bittercherry 420 Snowbrush 421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose 422 Riparian 501 Saltbush-greasewood 502 Grama-galleta 503 Arizona chaparral 504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland 505 Grama-tobosa shrub 506 Creosotebush-bursage 507 Palo verde-cactus 508 Creosotebush-tarbush 509 Transition between oak-juniper w oodland and mahogany-oak association 601 Bluestem prairie 604 Bluestem-grama prairie 605 Sandsage prairie 611 Blue grama-buffalo grass 701 Alkali sacaton-tobosagrass 702 Black grama-alkali sacaton 703 Black grama-sideoats grama 704 Blue grama-western wheatgrass 705 Blue grama-galleta 706 Blue grama-sideoats grama 707 Blue grama-sideoats grama-black grama 708 Bluestem-dropseed 709 Bluestem-grama 710 Bluestem prairie 711 Bluestem-sacahuista prairie 712 Galleta-alkali sacaton 713 Grama-muhly-threeawn 714 Grama-bluestem 715 Grama-buffalo grass 716 Grama-feathergrass 717 Little bluestem-India ngrass-Texas wintergrass 718 Mesquite-grama 

### Page 6 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html719 Mesquite-liveoak-s eacoast bluestem 720 Sand bluestem-little bluestem (dunes) 721 Sand bluestem-little bluestem (plains) 722 Sand sagebrush-mixed prairie 723 Sea oats 724 Sideoats grama-New Mexi co feathergrass-winterfat 725 Vine mesquite-alkali sacaton 726 Cordgrass 727 Mesquite-buffalo grass 728 Mesquite-granjeno-acacia 729 Mesquite 730 Sand shinnery oak 731 Cross timbers-Oklahoma 732 Cross timbers-Texas (little bluestem-post oak) 733 Juniper-oak 734 Mesquite-oak 735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper 801 Savanna 802 Missouri prairie 803 Missouri glades 804 Tall fescue 805 Riparian 806 Gulf Coast salt marsh 807 Gulf Coast fresh marsh 808 Sand pine scrub 809 Mixed hardwood and pine 810 Longleaf pine-turkey oak hills 811 South Florida flatwoods 812 North Florida flatwoods 813 Cutthroat seeps 814 Cabbage palm flatwoods 815 Upland hardwood hammocks 816 Cabbage palm hammocks 817 Oak hammocks 818 Florida salt marsh 819 Freshwater marsh and ponds 820 Everglades flatwoods 821 Pitcher plant bogs 822 Slough

HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES: Information about giant reed a nd associated plant communities is sparse. Most accounts discuss ripari an and wetland habitat types without delineating species that occur with giant reed. In the absence of giant reed, coastal southe rn California riparian habitat is typically dominated by willow ( Salix spp.) with local stands of Fremont cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ), black cottonwood ( P. balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa ), and white alder ( Alnus rhombifolia ); and mixed woodlands of oak ( Quercus spp.), especially coast live oak ( Q. agrifolia ), and California sycamore ( Platanus racemosa ) on the higher terraces. Willow communities may include arroyo willow ( S. lasiolepis ), red willow ( S. laevigata ), narrowleaf willow ( S. exigua ), Goodding willow ( S. gooddingii ), and mule's fat ( Baccharis salicifolia ) [ 110 ]. Dick-Peddie [ 23 ] lists giant reed as a plant occurring in riparian ar eas of floodplains, plains, and arroyos in New Mexico. These floodplains are often dominated by cottonwoods ( Populus spp.). Cottonwoods commonly share dominance with Goodding willow in the southern part of New Mexico, and with peachleaf willow ( S. amygdaloides ) in the north. Understory layers may be dominated by stretchberry ( Forestiera pubescens var. pubescens ), skunkbush sumac ( Rhus trilobata ), rabbitbrush ( Chrysothamnus spp.), and/or sandbar willow ( S. interior). Nonnative tamarisk ( Tamarix spp.) associations are common on both floodplain and plains habitat. Fr om Albuquerque north, nonna tive Russian-olive ( Elaeagnus angustifolia ) often dominates riparian communities. Riparian thickets on the Rio Grande River inthe southern portion of the state are often composed of screwbean mesquite ( Prosopis pubescens ) with skunkbush sumac, mule's fat, wolfberry ( Lycium spp.) and arrowweed ( Pluchea sericea ). Arroyos in the northwest part of Ne w Mexico are usually dominated by black greasewood ( Sarcobatus vermiculatus ). Green rabbitbrush ( C. nauseosus var. graveolens ) and rubber rabbitbrush ( C. n. var. bigelovii ) are also common dominants on arroyos. In the southern part of the state, lower portions of arroyos, where the beds widen, are often dominated b y sin g lewhorl burrobrush ( Hy menoclea mono gy ra ), Apache plume ( F allu g ia paradoxa ), 

### Page 7 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmllittleleaf sumac (R. microphylla ), and splitleaf brickellbush ( Brickellia laciniata ). Mule's fat occurs in all areas [ 23 ]. In riparian woodlands within the Chi huahuan desert, Hendric kson and Johnston [ 45 ] list giant reed as occurring with saltcedar ( T. ramosissima ) and occurring with and displacing Gooding willow, desert willow ( Chilopsis linearis ), honey mesquite ( Prosopis glandulosa ), screwbean mesquite, Frem ont cottonwood, velvet ash ( Fraxinus velutina ), common reed ( Phragmites australis ) and mule's fat.



## BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

SPECIES: Arundo donax

z GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS

z RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM

z REGENERATION PROCESSES

z SITE CHARACTERISTICS

z SUCCESSIONAL STATUS

z SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS: The following description of giant reed pr ovides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for identification. Keys for identif ication are available (e.g., [ 40 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 63 , 69 , 77 , 103 , 105 , 107 ]). Giant reed and common reed, a native grass distributed across mostof the United States, can be difficult to distinguis h. Proper identification of gi ant reed is essential before imp lementing control measures [ 24 ]. Giant reed is a tall, erect, perennial gr aminoid. It is the largest member of th e genus and among the largest of grasses, growing 6 to 30 feet (2-8 m) tall [ 11 , 28 , 74 ]. The culms reach a diameter of 0.4 to 1.6 inches (1-4 cm) and commonly branch during the second year of growth. Culms ar e hollow, with walls 2 to 7 mm thick and divided by partitions at the nodes. The nodes vary in length from 5 to 12 inches (12-30 cm). Leaves are conspicuously 2-ranked, 2 to 3.2 inches (5-8 cm) broad at the base and tapering to a fine point. Base s of the leaves are cordate and more-or-les s hairy-tufted, persisting long after the blades have fallen [ 74 ]. Giant reed has large plume-like panicles. Sp ikelets are several-flowered with upper florets successively smaller [ 33 ]. Giant reed has thick, knotty rhizomes [ 103 ] and deeply penetrating roots [ 74 ]. Once established, it tends to form large, continuous, clonal root masses, so metimes covering several acres. These root masses can be more than 3 feet (1 m) thick (review by [ 11 ]). Although giant reed has been widely cultivated for centuries, little information on its biology and ecology has been published. As of this writing (2004), more research is ne eded to understand the biology and ecology of giant reed. RAUNKIAER [ 78 ] LIFE FORM: Hydrophyte

REGENERATION PROCESSES: The reproductive biology of giant reed is not well studied. As of this writing (2004), information on the importance of sexual reproduction, seed vi ability, dormancy, germination and seedli ng establishment is not available. Giant reed reproduces vegetatively by sprouting from rhizomes and stem nodes (reviews by [ 11 , 28 , 49 ]). 

### Breeding system: No information is av ailable on this topic.



### Pollination: No information is av ailable on this topic. 

### Seed production: Although giant reed is well adapted in many parts of North America, it rarely, if ever, produces viable seed here (reviews by [ 11 , 74 ])[ 47 ]. 

### Seed dispersal: The hairy, light-weight disseminules (individual florets with the enclosed grain) are dispersed by wind [ 33 ]. 

### Page 8 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html

### Seed banking: No information is av ailable on this topic.



### Germination: No information is available on this topic. 

### Seedling establishment/growth: Seedlings of giant reed have not been observed in the field [ 28 ]. Establishment of giant reed is from fragmented rhizom es or stem nodes that take root (see Asexual regeneration, below). Giant reed grows very rapidly. In a southern California study, Rieger and Kreager [ 80 ] cut an established giant reed community and measured its growth after cutting. Growth rates from established rhizomes averaged 2.5 inches (6.25 cm) per day in the first 40 days and 1 inch (2.67 cm) per day inthe first 150 days. Under optima l conditions (i.e., cultivation) giant reed is reported to grow 1.5 to 4 inches (4-10 cm) per day (review by [ 74 ]). 

### Asexual regeneration: Population expansion of giant reed in North America is through vegeta tive reproduction. This occurs either via underground rhizome extension or fr om plant fragments carried downstream (review by [ 28 ]). Giant reed is well adapted to the high disturbance dynamics of riparian systems, as floods break up clumps of giant reed and spread pieces downstream where they can take root and establish new clones [ 11 , 28 ]. Anecdotal accounts sugge st that rhizomes buried under as much as 3 to 10 feet (1-3 m) of alluvium ca n "readily resprout" (R. Dale , personal communication in [ 28 ]). Much of the cultivation of giant reed throughout the world is initiated by planting rh izomes which root and sprout easily [ 48 , 49 ]. A 1949 joint publication by the U.S. Forest Service and the California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, describing recommende d plants for erosion control [ 48 ] states pieces of giant reedrhizomes can be buried to establish the plant. A 1988 paper describes giant reed as a planted rhizome which "p erforms well" as an understory plant in riparian zones in New Mexico [ 91 ]. In a greenhouse experiment, Motamed [ 68 ] determined that giant reed stem fragments rooted throughout the growing season.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Although giant reed has a wide distribution in North America, details about site characteristics where it is invasive are limited. Most available information on its biology and ecology in North Americ a comes from reviews and studies in California. Giant reed is a hydrophyte, and grows best where water tables are near or at the soil surface [ 79 ]. Giant reed growth may be retarded by lack of moisture during its first year, but drought causes no serious damage in patches 2 to 3 years old [ 74 ]. In California, it typically grows along lakes, streams, drains a nd other wet sites [ 11 ]. It is well adapted for establishment and spread in riparian areas with regular fl ood cycles (see Asexual regeneration). In California, it is most commonly associated with waterways with altered hydrologic reg imes (e.g., dams) and/or disturbed riparianvegetation, but can also establish in the understory of native riparian vegetation [ 28 ]. In southern California giant r eed reaches peak abundance downstream along major rivers in coastal basins, an d has generally not spread up the stee p, narrow canyons that characterize lower montane areas [ 87 ]. It establishes primarily on streamside microsite s, but can spread beyond the zone occupied by native riparian vegetation [ 24 , 28 , 102 ], and can occur on dry riverba nks far from permanent water [ 28 ]. A study along the San Luis Rey River in San Diego County found the highest concentration of giant reed colonies within 24 feet (7.3 m) of the river. The authors suggest frequency and magn itude of river flow contribute to this pattern of distribution [ 80 ]. Giant reed tolerates excessive salinity and periods of ex cessive moisture [ 74 ]. In South Carolina, it has invaded abandoned rice fields and grows in brackish water [ 86 ]. In a greenhouse experiment designed to te st the tolerance of giant reed to salt stress, Peck [ 73 ] determined giant reed can grow in saline conditions a nd may be able to invade a nd persist in salt marshes. Reviews (e.g., [ 24 , 28 , 49 , 74 ]) report that giant reed grows on a variety of soil types including coarse sands, gravelly soil, heavy clays, and river sediments; howev er, the sources and context of this information are unclear. Stephenson and Calcarone [ 87 ] suggest that it requires "we ll-developed" soils to become established, whileDiTomaso [ 24 ] indicates that giant reed is "best developed in poor, sandy soil and in sunny situations ," and survives in areas with pH values between 5 and 8.7. Purdue [ 74 ] states that its growth is most vigorous in well-drained soils where moisture is abundant. Giant reed occurs in areas with annual precip itation ranging from 12 to 158 inches (300-4,000 mm) [ 24 ]. According to Purdue [ 74 ], it is a warm-temperate or subtropical species, and is able to survive very low temperatures when dormant, but is subject to serious damage by frosts that occur after initiation of spring growth. In California, giant reed is apparently restricted to elevations below 1,640 feet (500 m) [ 47 ]. However, Perdue [ 74 ] reports it g rows at altitudes to 8,000 feet (2,438 m) in the Himala y as. 

### Page 9 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlElevation ranges reported for gian t reed in other areas include:

N evada: 2,500 to 4,000 feet (760-1,220 m) [ 56 ] N ew Mexico: 4,000 to 4,500 feet (1,220-1,370 m) [ 62 ] Utah: 2,790 to 4,100 feet (850-1,250 m) [ 103 ]

SUCCESSIONAL STATUS: Giant reed can establish and spread in communities of various successional stages , acting as an early -successional pioneer species, and a late-s uccessional dominant. According to reviews by Bell [ 11 ] and Dudley [ 28 ], giant reed is well adapted to the high disturbance dynamics of riparian systems, as floods break up clumps of gian t reed and spread pieces downstream wher e they can take root and establish new clones. In California, it is most common along waterways with altered hydrologic regimes (e.g., dams) and/or disturbed riparian vegetation, but can also establish in the understory of native riparian vegetation [ 28 ]. However, establishment of giant reed in dense, mature riparian vegetation may be limited [ 80 ]. Once established, giant reed grows quickly [ 74 , 80 ] and spreads vegetatively, often forming monocultural stands that physically inhibit growth of other plant species [ 11 , 26 , 80 ]. Invaded habitats may thus be come pure stands of giant reed [ 10 , 80 , 95 ]. Although evidence is limited and an ecdotal, some authors (e.g., [ 9 , 84 ]) note changes in fuels, fire characteristics, and postfire plant community response that are suggestive of an invasive grass/fire cy cle perpetuated by gian t reed invasion in southern California riparian areas. Becaus e giant reed produces abundant biomass (i.e ., fuel), is "extreme ly flammable", and responds with rapid growth from sprouting rhizomes after top-ki ll, it may alter fire regime characteristics and successional processes of invaded riparian ecosystems (see Fire regimes ).

SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT: Information on the phenology of giant reed in the literature is sparse. In California, culms may remain green throughout the year, but can fade during semi-dormancy during the winter months or in drought [ 28 , 99 ]. According to Bell [ 11 ] in an assessment of optimal timing of herbicide application, giant reed plants actively transl ocate nutrients to the rootmass in preparation for winter dormancy around mid-August to early November.



## FIRE ECOLOGY

SPECIES: Arundo donax

z FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS

z POSTFIRE REGENE RATION STRATEGY

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS: 

### Fire adaptations: As of this writing (2004), information on fire ad aptations of giant reed are limited to anecdotal accounts and assertions based on known biological attributes. Giant reed's ex tensive rhizomes are likely to survive and sprout after fire removes top growth. Reviews (e.g., [ 11 , 28 , 95 ]) provide anecdotal evidence that indicates that sprouts emerge from rhizomes of giant reed soon after fire and grow quickly. Rieger and Kreager [ 80 ] observed rapid sprouting and growth of giant reed after removing top-growth by cutting (see Growth ).



### Fire re g imes: With the exception of California, almost no published information is avai lable that describes the types of Flowering dates for giant reed by location State Time of flowering California (southern) late summer [ 11 ] Carolina, North and South September-October [ 77 ] Florida all year [ 107 ] New Mexico June to September [ 62 ] 

### Page 10 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlplant communities in which giant reed is invasive, although gi ant reed generally occurs in riparian and wetland areas throughout its wide distribution . Characteristics of riparian zones and wetlands vary substantially throughout this range, and fire regimes are not well described for many of these communities . A review by Dwire and Kauffman [ 30 ] discusses how differences in topography, microc limate, geomorphology, and vegetation may lead to differe nces in fire behavior and fire effects between riparian areas and surroundi ng uplands. Riparian areas may act as a fi re barrier or a fire corridor, depending on topography, weather, and fuel characteristics [ 30 ]. Recovery of riparian vegetation de pends on fire severity and postfire hydrology [ 22 ]. Dwire and Kauffman [ 30 ] indicate that riparianmicroclimates are generally characteri zed by cooler air temperature, lower daily maximum air temperature, and higher relative humidity than the adjacent upla nds, contributing to higher fuel moisture content and presumably lowering the intens ity, severity, and frequency of fire inriparian areas compared to adjacent uplands. Similarly, Bell [ 11 ] suggests that fire is uncommon inriparian areas in southern Calif ornia, and that native riparian species are not well adapted to frequent or severe fire. In this area, lightning-ign ited wildfires usually occur in late fall, winter, and early spring when riparianvegetation is typically moist and gr een and would act as a fire break [ 11 ]. In southern California, riparian areas invade d by giant reed often occur within grasslands or chaparral shrublands . The limited available research from such ecosystems s uggests longer fire return intervals and lower-s everity burns in riparian areas relative to adjacent upland vegetation [ 30 ]. Human-caused wildfires often occur during the dry months of the year (July through October) in southern California, when drier conditions make riparian vegetation more vulnerable to fire damage [ 11 ]. Information regarding the effects of giant reed on fuels and fire regime characteristics in plant communities in which it is invasive in North America is limited to accounts from southernCalifornia. Although evidence is entirely anecdotal, several accounts (e.g., [ 11 , 20 , 29 , 84 , 95 ]) describe changes in fuels, fire characteris tics, and/or postfire plant community response in southern California riparian areas invade d by giant reed that are suggestive of an invasive grass/fire cycle. Because giant reed grows quickly and produces large amounts of biomass [ 74 ] in dense stands described as having "large quantities of dry material" [ 95 ], it is conceivable that its invasion introduces novel fuel properties to the invaded ecosystem. It thus has the potential to alter fire beha vior and the fire regime ( sensu [ 14 , 19 ]). Giant reed is among the most productive of plant communities and can produc e over 20 tons of aboveground biomass per hectare under some conditions [ 74 ]. Scott [ 84 ] observes that in the Santa Ana Basin in southern California, the i nvasion of giant reed into riparian corridors has doubled and in some areas tripled the amount of fuels available for wildfire. According to Bell [ 9 , 11 ] giant reed is "extremely flammable" throughout most of the year, and once established increases the probability of wildfire occurrence and the intensity of fires that do occur. This observation is upheld by manager and newspaper accounts of intense wildfires fueled by giant reed in Riversid e County (as cited in [ 95 ]), the Santa Ana River drainage (J. Wright, personal communication in [ 87 ]), and the Russian River further north [ 29 ]. For example, a fire in Soledad Canyon in January 1991 was said to have "burned a ggressively through the riparian vegetation" due to dry conditions from a prolonged drought coupled with the presence of dried stands of giant reed (Joyce, personal observation cited in [ 95 ]). Dudley [ 29 ] describes destructive fires fueled by continuous , 15-foot-high colonies of giant reed along the Santa Ana River, noting that "such flammable vegetation is now changi ng riparian corridors from barriers to the spread of fires into wicks that carry fire up and downstream, into highw ay bridges or crowns of nati ve, fire-sensitive trees". See Fire hazard potential for more information on this topic. As of this writing (2004) no research is available on postfire response of giant reed; however, observations indicate that in most circumstances fire cannot kill th e underground rhizomes and probably favor s giant reed regene ration over native riparian species (e.g., Gaffney and Cushman 1998, cited in [ 28 ]). One week after a fire in Soledad Canyon in January 1991, for example, burned giant reed colonies were sprouting from their extensive rhizomes. Many sprouts were over 2 feet (0.6 m) tall within 2 weeks after the fire, even though January is normally the dormant period for giant reed. Most willow, mulefat, and aquatic plants were also burned, and many cottonwoods were scorched. Th e aquatic plants in the stream were the only plants other than giant reed that were recovering within the first few week s of burning. In this way, fire gives giant reed an advantage over native riparian pl ants, and its dominance in the area has increased dramatically (Joyce, personal observation in [ 95 ]). In this sense, Bell [ 11 ] suggests that riparian communities invaded by giant reed can change from "flood-defined" to "fire-defined" communi ties, as has occurred on the Santa Ana Rive r. This grass/fire cycle would thus result in river corridors dominated by stands of giant reed with little biological diversity [ 11 ]. As mentioned above, there is li ttle research regarding fire re gimes and fire return interval s in riparian areas. However, riparian communities may be influenced by the fire regimes of adjacent and surrounding plant communi ties. The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where ri parian vegetation may include giant reed, though its invasiveness in many of these communities has not yet been dem onstrated. For further information on fire regimes in these communities, see the FEIS summary on the dominant species listed below.

Fire Return Interval 

### Page 11 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlCommunity or Ecosystem Dominant Species Range (years) silver maple-American elm Acer saccharinum -Ulmus americana < 35 to 200 sugar maple Acer saccharum > 1,000 sugar maple-basswood Acer saccharum-Tilia americana > 1,000 [ 101 ] California chaparral Adenostoma and/or Arctostaphylos spp. < 35 to < 100 [ 72 ] bluestem prairie Andropogon gerardiivar. gerardiiSchizachyrium scoparium < 10 [ 59 , 72 ]
Nebraska sandhills prairie Andropogon gerardiivar. paucipilusSchizachyrium scoparium < 10
bluestem-Sacahuista prairie Andropogon littoralis- Spartina spartinae < 10 [ 72 ] silver sagebrush steppe Artemisia cana 5-45 [ 46 , 76 , 106 ] sagebrush steppe Artemisia tridentata/P seudoroegneria spicata 20-70 [ 72 ] basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata 12-43 [ 81 ] mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana 15-40 [ 5 , 16 , 66 ] Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis 10-70 (40**) [ 100 , 109 ] coastal sagebrush Artemisia californica < 35 to < 100 saltbush-greasewood Atriplex confertifolia- Sarcobatus vermiculatus < 35 to < 100 [ 72 ] mangrove Avicennia nitida-Rhizophora mangle 35-200 [ 70 ] desert grasslands Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica 5-100 [ 72 ] plains grasslands Bouteloua spp. < 35 blue grama-buffalo grass Bouteloua gracilis-Buchloe dactyloides < 35 [ 72 , 106 ] grama-galleta steppe Bouteloua gracilis-P leuraphis jamesii < 35 to < 100 blue grama-tobosa prairie Bouteloua gracilis-Pleuraphis mutica < 35 to < 100 [ 72 ] cheatgrass Bromus tectorum < 10 [ 75 , 104 ] California montane chaparral Ceanothus and/or Arctostaphylos spp. 50-100 [ 72 ] sugarberry-America elm-green ash Celtis laevigata-Ulmus americana-Fraxinus p ennsylvanica < 35 to 200 [ 101 ] paloverde-cactus shrub Cercidium microphyllum/Opuntia spp. < 35 to < 100 [ 72 ] curlleaf mountain-mahogany* Cercocarpus ledifolius 13-1,000 [ 6 , 83 ] mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub Cercocarpus ledifolius-Quercus gambelii < 35 to < 100 [ 72 ] Atlantic white-cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides 35 to > 200 [ 101 ] blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima < 35 to < 100 Arizona cypress Cupressus arizonica < 35 to 200 northern cordgrass prairie Distichlis spicata-Spartina spp. 1-3 [ 72 ] beech-sugar maple Fagus spp.- Acer saccharum > 1,000 [ 101 ] California steppe Festuca-Danthonia spp. < 35 [ 72 , 89 ] black ash Fraxinus nigra < 35 to 200 [ 101 ] j unipe r -oak savanna Juniperus ashei-Quercus virginiana < 35 Ashe juniper Juniperus ashei < 35 western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 20-70 Rocky Mountain juniper Juniperus scopulorum < 35 [ 72 ] cedar glades Juniperus virginiana 3-22 [ 43 , 72 ] creosotebush Larrea tridentata < 35 to < 100
Ceniza shrub Larrea tridentata-Leucophyllum frutescensProsopis glandulosa < 35 [ 72 ] yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera < 35 [ 101 ] 

### Page 12 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlEverglades Mariscus jamaicensis < 10 melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia < 35 to 200 [ 70 ] wheatgrass plains grasslands Pascopyrum smithii < 5-47+ [ 72 , 76 , 106 ] southeastern spruce-fir Picea-Abies spp. 35 to > 200 [ 101 ] Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Picea engelmannii-Abies lasiocarpa 35 to > 200 pine-cypress forest Pinus-Cupressus spp. < 35 to 200 [ 4 ] pinyon-juniper Pinus-Juniperus spp. < 35 [ 72 ] Mexican pinyon Pinus cembroides 20-70 [ 67 , 92 ] shortleaf pine Pinus echinata 2-15 shortleaf pine-oak Pinus echinata-Quercus spp. < 10 [ 101 ] Colorado pinyon Pinus edulis 10-400+ [ 36 , 41 , 58 , 72 ] slash pine Pinus elliottii 3-8 slash pine-hardwood Pinus elliottii -variable < 35 sand pine Pinus elliottii var. elliottii 25-45 [ 101 ] South Florida slash pine Pinus elliottiivar. densa 1-5 longleaf-slash pine Pinus palustris -P. elliottii 1-4 [ 70 , 101 ] longleaf pine-scrub oak Pinus palustris-Quercus spp. 6-10 [ 101 ] pitch pine Pinus rigida 6-25 [ 15 , 44 ] pocosin Pinus serotina 3-8 pond pine Pinus serotina 3-8 eastern white pine Pinus strobus 35-200 eastern white pine-eastern hemlock Pinus strobus-Tsuga canadensis 35-200 loblolly pine Pinus taeda 3-8 loblolly-shortleaf pine Pinus taeda-P. echinata 10 to < 35 Virginia pine Pinus virginiana 10 to < 35 Virginia pine-oak Pinus virginiana-Quercus spp. 10 to < 35 sycamore-sweetgum-American elm Platanus occidentalis-Li quidambar styracifluaUlmus americana < 35 to 200 [ 101 ] galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe Pleuraphis jamesi i-Aristida purpurea < 35 to < 100 eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides < 35 to 200 [ 72 ] mesquite Prosopis glandulosa < 35 to < 100 [ 64 , 72 ] mesquite-buffalo grass Prosopis glandulosa-Bu chloe dactyloides < 35 Texas savanna Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa < 10 [ 72 ] mountain grasslands Pseudoroegneria spicata 3-40 (10**) [ 3 , 4 ] California oakwoods Quercus spp. < 35 [ 4 ] oak-hickory Quercus-Carya spp. < 35 [ 101 ] oak-juniper woodland (Southwest) Quercus-Juniperus spp. < 35 to < 200 [ 72 ] oak-gum-cypress Quercus-Nyssa- spp.- Taxodium distichum 35 to > 200 [ 70 ] southeastern oak-pine Quercus-Pinus spp. < 10 [ 101 ] coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 2-75 [ 42 ] white oak-black oak-northern red oak Quercus alba-Q. velutina-Q. rubra < 35 [ 101 ] canyon live oak Quercus chrysolepis <35 to 200 blue oak-foothills pine Quercus douglasii-P. sabiniana <35 [ 4 ] northern pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis < 35 [ 101 ] Oregon white oak Quercus garryana < 35 [ 4 ] 

### Page 13 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html*fire return interval varies widely; trends in variation are noted in the species review **mean

POSTFIRE REGENERA TION STRATEGY [ 88 ]: Rhizomatous herb, rhizome in soil Geophyte, growing points deep in soil Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community) Initial off-site colonizer (off-site, initial community)



## FIRE EFFECTS

SPECIES: Arundo donax

z IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT

z DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT

z PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE

z DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE

z FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT: Anecdotal evidence cited in reviews (e.g., [ 11 , 28 , 95 ]) indicates that giant reed is top-killed by fire, and in most circumstances underground rhizomes survive fire. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT: N o additional information is available on this topic.

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE: bear oak Quercus ilicifolia < 35 >[ 101 ] California black oak Quercus kelloggii 5-30 [ 72 ] bur oak Quercus macrocarpa < 10 [ 101 ]
oak savanna Quercus macrocarpa/Andropogon gerardiiSchizachyrium scoparium 2-14 [ 72 , 101 ] shinnery Quercus mohriana < 35 chestnut oak Quercus prinus 3-8 post oak-blackjack oak Quercus stellata-Q. marilandica < 10 black oak Quercus velutina < 35 live oak Quercus virginiana 10 to< 100 [ 101 ] interior live oak Quercus wislizenii < 35 [ 4 ] cabbage palmetto-slash pine Sabal palmetto-Pinus elliottii < 10 [ 70 , 101 ] blackland prairie Schizachyrium scoparium-Nassella leucotricha < 10 Fayette prairie Schizachyrium scoparium-Buchloe dactyloides < 10 [ 101 ] little bluestem-grama prairie Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua spp. < 35 tule marshes Scirpus and/or Typha spp. < 35 [ 72 ] redwood Sequoia sempervirens 5-200 [ 4 , 35 , 90 ] southern cordgrass prairie Spartina alterniflora 1-3 [ 72 ] baldcypress Taxodium distichum var. distichum 100 to > 300 pondcypress Taxodium distichum var. nutans < 35 [ 70 ] eastern hemlock-yellow birch Tsuga canadensis-Bet ula alleghaniensis > 200 [ 101 ] western hemlock-Sitka spruce Tsuga heterophylla-Picea sitchensis > 200 [ 4 ] elm-ash-cottonwood Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp. < 35 to 200 [ 27 , 101 ] 

### Page 14 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlAs of this writing (2004) no research is available on postfire response of giant reed; however, obser vations indicate that in most circumstances fire cannot kill th e underground rhizomes. One we ek after a fire in Soledad Canyon in January 1991, for example, burned giant reed colonies were sprouting from their extensive rhizomes. Many sprouts were over 2 feet (0.6 m) tall within 2 weeks after the fire, even though January is normally the dormant period for giant reed (Joyce, personal observation in [ 95 ]). DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE: N o additional information is available on this topic.

FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS: 

### Postfire colonization potential: The limited information available on the postfire colonization potential of giant reed indicates that wherever it is present in or adjacent to burned areas, managers should expect it to persist and possibly spread in the postfire environment. 

### Fire as a control agent: While prescribed burning alone is unlikely to control giant reed or prevent sprouting, infestations may be broadcast burned to re move standing plants and/or prepare for other control methods such as herbicide treatments or revegetation with fast growing native species [ 49 ]. However, no information is av ailable in the literature on the efficacy of such approaches. A review by Dudley [ 28 ] suggests that in most circumstan ces burning of live or chemically treated giant reed should not be atte mpted, as it cannot kill the underground rh izomes and probably favors giant reed regeneration over native riparian species. Additionally, burning giant reed infestati ons includes risks of uncontained fire, potential damage of desirabl e species, and difficulties of promoting fi re through patchily distributed stands [ 28 ]. A review by Hoshovsky [ 49 ] suggests that a flame thrower orweed burner device can be usedas a spot treatment to heatgirdle stems at the base of giant reed pl ants. This method is only appropriate when the potential to ignite unwanted fires is negligible (Jones/Stokes 1984, cited in [ 49 ]).

It is recommended that stems and roots of pulled plants or cut stems of giant reed be removed or burned on site to avoid rerooting. Burning is suggested as the most co st-effective way of removing this biomass as long as it does not threaten native vegetation or other resources [ 11 , 84 ]. 

### Fire hazard potential: Managers in Riverside county are concerned that allowing giant reed to continue to grow and spread in San Francisquito and Soledad canyons increa ses the threat of wildfire in the area (also see Fire regimes ), possibly threatening life and property. They suggest th at removal of giant reed is the most fe asible alternative to reduce the risk of wildfire. Wildfire is common in the ch aparral vegetation surrounding riparian area s of these canyons; however, the presence of large, dense stands of giant reed in riparian areas creates a novel fire hazard th at is cumulative to the fire hazard from native chaparral vegetation, and thus increases the threat to life and property (review by [ 95 ]). Firefighting in giant reed thickets may have a substantial impact on fire manage ment resources (J. Wright, Riverside County Fire Dept.; R. Hawkins, Clevela nd NF, personal communications in [ 87 ]).



## MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

SPECIES: Arundo donax

z IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE

z OTHER USES

z IMPACTS AND CONTROL

IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE: Available evidence indicates giant reed provides neither food nor habitat for nati ve species of wildlife [ 11 ]. Bell [ 11 ] speculates that insects are sparse in sites dominated by giant reed because of abundantchemical defense compounds produced by the plant. 

### Palatability/nutritional value: Giant reed stems and leaves contain a wide array of chemicals that probably protect it from most native insects and grazer s. These chemicals include silica [ 51 , 74 ], triterpines, sterols [ 18 ], cardiac glycosides, curare-mimickin g indoles [ 39 ], h y droxamic acid, and numerous other alkaloids (Bell [ 11 ] and references therein). 

### Page 15 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlGiant reed is not very palatable to cattle , but they will eat it during dry seasons [ 49 , 108 ]. Domestic goats will also eat it [ 21 , 49 ]. Giant reed is low in protein but has a comparatively high concentration of phosphorus in the upper portions even when grown on soils with an extremely lo w concentration of this mineral [ 74 , 108 ].



### Cover value: Areas dominated by giant reed are largely depauperate of wildlife [ 9 , 11 , 54 ]. Additionally, a study by Chadwick and Associates [ 17 ] suggests giant reed also lacks the canopy stru cture to provide shading of bank-edge river habitats, resulting in warmer water than would be found with a native gallery of willows and cottonwoods. In the Santa Ana River system in California, this lack of streambank structure and shading has been impl icated in the decline of native stream fishes including the arroyo chub, three-spined stickl eback, speckled dace, and the Santa Ana sucker [ 9 , 17 ]. Giant reed has no structural similarity to any dominant riparian plant it replaces and offers little useful cover or nest placement opportunities for birds. Main stems are vertical with no horizontal structure strong enough to support birds [ 110 ]. For example, the southwestern willow flyc atcher, an endangered species, has not been reported nesting in any vegetation patches dominated by giant reed [ 97 ]. Only a few of bird species have been observed using giant reed for nest sites. Dramatic reductions (50% or more) in abunda nce and diversity of invert ebrates were also documented in giant reed thickets in southern California compared with thos e found in native willow /cottonwood vegetation [ 29 ]. Giant reed's most observed use as cover has been by feral pigs [ 110 ].

OTHER USES: Giant reed has been planted extensively for erosion control along drainage canals [ 49 ]. Wynd and others [ 108 ] report it can also be used to stabilize sand dunes. It is also used fo r thatching roofs of sheds, barns and other buildings [ 49 ]. Mexican campesinos use new tillers of giant reed for roofing and construc tion materials. It is the most important construction material in the Juamave region of Mexico [ 2 ]. Giant reed makes a good qual ity paper, and in Italy it is used in the manufacture of rayon [ 24 ].

Giant reed is used to make reeds for a vari ety of musical instruments including bagpipes [ 11 , 74 ]. Reeds for woodwind musical instruments are still made from the culms of giant reed, and no satisfactory substitu tes have been developed. The basis for the origin of the most primitive pipe organ, the Pan pipe or syrinx, was made from giant reed [ 74 ]. Five thousand years ago Egyptians usedgiant reed to line underground grain storage bins, and mummies from the 4th century A.D. were wrapped in giant reed leaves. Additi onal uses include basket-makin g, fishing rods, arrows, and ornamental plants. Medicinally, giant reed 's rhizome has been used as a sudorific, a diuretic, an antilactant, and in the treatment of dropsy [ 74 ].

IMPACTS AND CONTROL: 

### Impacts: Bell [ 11 ] considers giant reed to be the greatest threat to s outhern California's remaining riparian corridors. It is so widespread and problematic in this area that more than 20 public and private organizations came together to form the Santa Ana River Arundo Management Task Force, also known as Team Arundo [ 54 ]. Once established, giant reed often form s monocultural stands that physically i nhibit growth of other plant species [ 11 , 80 ]. For example, Douthit [ 26 ] describes a 1993 preliminary riparian assessment of the Santa Ana River basin where in the Riverside West Quad, 762 acres (308 ha) of 1,116 acres (470 ha) of riparian ve g etation are impacted b y g iant reed. Of the Nutritional content of giant ree d. Results are an average of 2 samples for eachcategory and are presented as percentages of oven-dry weight [ 108 ]: Old plant Young plant Lower half Upper half Lower half Upper half Total nitrogen 0.63 1.10 0.50 1.96 Protein (total N x 6.25) 3.94 6.88 3.13 12.25 Phosphorus 0.082 0.114 0.105 0.152

Calcium 0.52 0.67 0.30 0.43 Magnesium 0.25 0.32 0.12 0.19 Potassium 2.04 2.42 3.09 3.19 Carbohydrate 23.2 21.7 20.0 20.7 

### Page 16 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlimpacted acres, 535 acres (217 ha) are monospecific stands of giant reed. Although evidence is entirely anec dotal, several accounts (e.g., [ 11 , 20 , 29 , 84 , 95 ]) describe changes in fuels, fire characteristics, and/or postfire plant community response in southern California riparian areas invaded by giant reed that are suggestive of an invasive grass/fire cycl e. The result of such cycle is loss of native riparian sp ecies, and continued dominance and spread of giant reed. See Fire ecology for more details. Canopy structure of giant reed colonies differs from that of native vegetation, re sulting in changes in water quality and wildlife habitat. The lack of stream-side canopy structure may result in increased pH in the shallower sections of rivers due to high algal photosynthetic activity [ 9 , 17 ]. In turn, high pH facilitates conversion of ammonium (NH 4 + ) to toxic ammonia (NH 3 ), which further degrades water quality for aquatic specie s and for downstream users [ 9 ]. Several species listed as endangered are further threatened by giant reed invasion and control efforts in San Francisquito Canyon including least Bell's vireo, unarmored threespine stickleback, and Nevin's barberry (Mahonia nevinii ) [ 95 ]. Giant reed is becoming a major biological pol lutant of river estuaries and beaches. It is often ripped out of the soft bottoms of rivers during storms and washed dow nstream into flood control channels [ 25 ]. Giant reed growing in flood control channels necessitates constant removal. It can form debris dams against flood control and transportati on structures such as bridges and culverts [ 29 , 37 ]. Because the rhizomes of giant reed grow cl ose to the surface, they break off during floods. When the root mass breaks away during th ese floods the riverbanks ar e destabilize d. Destabilization of riverbanks is the leading cause of flooding in southern California [ 99 ].
Iverson [ 50 ] provides insight into the economics of giant reed's imp act on water use. He estimates giant reed transpires 56,200 acre-feet of water per year on the Santa Ana River, compared to an estimated 18,700 acre-feet that would be consumed by native vegetation - the difference being enough water to serve a population of about 190,000 people. If that amount of untreated water (37,500 acre-feet) was purchased from the Metropolitan Water As sociation it would cost approximately $12,000,000 in 1993 dollars [ 50 ].



### Control: A suite of methods is needed to control giant reed depe nding on presence or absence of native plants, size of the stand, amount of biomass involved, terrain, and season. The key to effective treatment of established giant reed is killing or removing the rhizomes [ 11 ]. To be successful, a program to eliminate a riparian invasive plant like giant reed must start at the uppermost reaches of the watershed and work down stream. This mean s there must be coordination with all of the landowners and land managers, top to bottom, in a watershed. Regulatory agencies must provide technical assistance and re quired permits, and private landowners must provide work crews access to land [ 99 ]. To adequately coordinate rem oval of giant reed in a waters hed, 3 programs need to be operating: 1) create a functional mapped database that contains hydrology, land ownership/use, infesta tions, project sites, etc.; 2) coordination with regulatory agencies to plan mitigation project sites to fit within other current project s; 3) regular meetings of stakeholders to share information regarding threats from gi ant reed, control techniques, funding opportunities, and each stakeholder's direct role and responsibility [ 99 ].



### Prevention: Grading and construction can spread giant reed [ 80 ]. Care must therefore be taken in areas where it occurs such that soil disturbance and move ment of plant part s is minimized. 

### Integrated management: A popular approach to treating giant reed has be en to cut the stalks and remove the biomass, wait 3 to 6 weeks for the plants to grow about 3.3 feet (1 m) tall, then apply a foliar spray of herbicide solution. The chief advantage to this approach is less herbicide is needed to treat fresh growthcompared with tall, established plants, and coverage is often better because of the shorter and uniform-height plants. However, cutting the stem s may result in plants returning to growth-phase, drawing nutrients from the root mass. As a result there is less translocation of herbicide to the roots and less root-kill. Additionally, cut-stem treatment require s more time and personnel than foliar spraying and requires careful timing. Cut stems must be treated with concentrated herbicide within 1 to 2 minutes of cutting to ensure tissue uptake. This treatment is most effective af ter flowering. The advantage of this treatme nt is that it requires less herbicide an d the herbicide can be applied more precisel y. It is rarely less expensive than foliar spraying except on very small, isolated patches or individual plants [ 11 ]. An investigation to test the effectiveness of glyphosate for control of gi ant reed was conducted in southern California by Caltrans, the state transportation agency. Results indicate cut-stem treatments, regardless of ti me of application (May, July,
o r

September), provided 100% control with no resproutin g . In contrast, virtuall y all plants that were left untreated followin g 

### Page 17 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlcutting resprouted vigorously. Foliar trea tments produced highly variable results wi th top die-back varying from 10 to 90% and resprouting ranging from 0 to 100% at various sites. The authors conclude treatment of cut stems appears more effective than foliar spraying in controlli ng giant reed with glyphosate [ 34 ]. In 1995, a full-scale project for control of giant reed was in itiated in San Francisquito Canyon in the Angeles National Forest. The standing giant reed was mulched in place, using a hammer flail mower attached to a tractor, and then glyphosate was applied to the resprouts. Initial mulching occurred in October and Nove mber, 1995. Resprouts in spring, 1996, were treated with a solution of glyphosate in Ap ril, May, July, and August. Resprouts were treated again in June and September, 1997. In 1998, giant reed continued to resprout in the treatmen t area, but comprised only 1% of vegetative cover, as compared to 30% to 80% prior to treatment [ 8 ]. No information is provided about the composition of the plant community posttreatment. 

### Physical/mechanical: Minor infestations of giant reed can be eradic ated by manual methods, especially where sensitive native plants and wildlife mi ght be damaged by other methods. Hand pulling work s with new plants less than 6.6 feet (2 m) in height, but care must be take n that all rhizomes are removed [ 49 ]. This may be most effective in loose soils and after rains have loosened the substrate. Giant reed can be dug using hand tools and in combination with cutting plants near the base. Stems and roots should be remove d and burned on site to prevent rerooting. Th e fibrous nature of gi ant reed makes using a chipper difficult (R. Dale personal communication in [ 28 ]). For larger infestations on acces sible terrain, heavier tools (rotary brush cutter, chainsaw, or tractor-mounted mower) may faci litate biomass removal foll owed by rhizome removal or chemical treatment. Such methods may be of limited value on complex or sensi tive terrain or on slopes over 30%. These methods may also interfere with re -establishment of native plants [ 49 ]. Mechanical eradication of giant reed is extremely difficult, even with the use of a backhoe, as rhizomes buried under 3 to 10 feet (1-3 m) of alluvium readily resprout (R. Dale personal communication in [ 28 ]).
Cut material is often burned on site, s ubject to local fire regulations, because of the difficulty and expense involved in collecting and removing or chipping all mate rial. Stems and roots must be removed, chipped, or burned on site to avoid rerooting (Dale, personal communication in [ 28 ]).



### Fire: See Fire Management Considerations

. 

### Biological: Tracy and DeLoach [ 93 ] provide an exhaustive summary of the sear ch for biological control agents for giant reed in the United States. Areas dominated by giant reed in North America are es sentially devoid of wi ldlife. This means native flora and fauna do not offer any significant control potential [ 11 ]. It is uncertain what natural controlling mechanisms for giant reed are in its countries of origin, a lthough corn borers (Eizaguirre and others 1990 in [ 11 ]), spider mites [ 31 ], and aphids [ 65 ] have been reported in the Mediterrane an. A sugar cane moth-borer in Barba dos is reported to attack giant reed, but it is also a major pest of sugar cane and is already found in the United States in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida [ 94 ]. A leafhopper in Pakistan utilize s giant reed as an alternate host but attacks corn and wheat [ 1 ].

In the United States a number of diseases have been reported on giant reed, including root ro t, lesions, crown rust, and stem speckle, but none seem to have serious ly impacted advance of this weed [ 11 ]. Giant reed is not very palatable to cattle, but during the drier seasons they will graze the young shoots, followed by the upper parts of the older plants [ 108 ]. In many areas of California the use of Angora and Spanish goats is showing promise for controlling giant reed [ 21 ].



### Chemical: Application of herbicides on gian t reed is most effective after flow ering and before dormancy. During this period, usually mid-August to early November in southern California, the plants are actively translocati ng nutrients to the root mass in preparation for winter dormancy. This may resu lt in effective translocation of herbicide to the roots [ 11 ]. Comparison trials on the Santa Margarita River in southern Ca lifornia indicate foliar appl ication during the appropriate season results in almost 100% control, compared with only 5 to 50% control using cut-stem treatment. Two to 3 weeks after foliar treatment the leaves and stalks brown and soften creati ng an additional advantage in de aling with the biomass. Cut green stems might take root if left on damp soil and are ve ry difficult to cut and chip. Treated stems have little or no potential to root and are brittle (Omori 1996 in Bell [ 11 ]). Bell [ 11 ], Hoshovsky [ 49 ], and Jackson [ 52 ] provide detailed information on specific herbicides and con centrations used to treat giant reed. In the proceedings from a workshop on gi ant reed control published online, Bell [ 11 ] asserts pure stands of giant reed (>80% canopy cover) are most efficiently and effe ctively treated by aerial application of an herbicide concentrate, usually by helicopter. Helicopter app lication can treat at leas t 124 acres (50 ha) per day. In areas wh ere helicopter access is impossible and giant reed makes up the understory, wher e patches are too small to make aerial application financia lly efficient, or where giant reed is mixed with native plants (<80% canopy coverage), herbicides must be applied by hand. 

### Page 18 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html

### Cultural: Giant reed appears to be insensitive to flood regime. It survives and spreads through vegetative propagation during long periods without flooding but spreads during flood even ts as well. Because it does not reproduce sexually, giant reed is not affected by the timing of spring flows, but can establish any time that flood flows carry and deposit stem fragments or rhizomes. It thrives along edges of reservoirs , irrigation canals, and other structures where timing of drawdowns is incompatible with maintenance of native species [ 97 ]. Conversely, native riparian species and communities depend on natural flood regime s for maintenance and reproduction. If natural flood dynamics are maintained as pa rt of an integrated management approa ch, native species may have a better chance of competing with giant reed in the long term [ 11 ].



## Arundo donax: REFERENCES

1. Ahmed, Manzoor; Jabbar, Abdul; Samad, Khurshi d. 1977. Ecology and behaviour of Zyginidia quyumi (Typhlocybinae: Cicadellidae) in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 9(1): 79-85. [46970] 2. Anderson, Kat. 1991. Wild plant manage ment: Cross-cultural examples of the small farmers of Jaumave, Mexico, and the southern Miwok of the Yosemite region. Arid Lands News letter. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies. 31: 18-23. [17350] 3. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the No rthern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. [11990] 4. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosyst ems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effect s of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. [36984] 5. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. [342] 6. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. [350]
7. Baskin, Yvonne. 1998. Winners and losers in a changing world. BioScience. 48(10): 788-792. [45470] 8. Bautista, Shawna. 1998. A comparison of two methods for controlling Arundo donax. In: Bell, Carl E., ed. In: Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: Un iversity of California, Cooperative Extension: 49-52. [47123] 9. Bell, Gary P. 1993. Biology and growth habits of giant reed (Arundo donax). In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings, [Online]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecol ogy_impacts/biology.html [2004, February 25]. [46971] 10. Bell, Gary P. 1993. Re-vegetation of riparian habitat: hauling coals to Newcastle? In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings, [Online]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46980] 11. Bell, Gary P. 1997. Ecology and management of Arundo donax, and approaches to riparian habitat restoration in southern California. In: Brock, J. H.; Wade , M.; Pysek, P.; Green, D., eds. Plant invasions: studies from North America and Europe. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers: 103-113. [43820] 12. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distri bution of mammals, reptile s, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler' s associations for the eleven west ern states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 13. Bor, N. L. 1968. Gramineae. In: Townsend, C. C.; Guest, Evan; Al-Rawi, Ali, eds. Flora of Iraq. Volume 9. 

### Page 19 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlBaghdad: Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Agriculture: 588 p. [44043]
14. Brooks, Matthew L.; D'Antonio, Carla M.; Richards on, David M.; Grace, James B.; Keeley, Jon E.; DiTomaso, Joseph M.; Hobbs, Richard J.; Pellant, Mike; Pyke, David. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. Bioscience. 54(7): 677-688. [50224] 15. Buchholz, Kenneth; Good, Ralph E. 1982. Density, age structure, biomass and net annual aboveground productivity of dwarfed Pinus rigida Moll. from the Ne w Jersey Pine Barren Plains. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club. 109(1): 24-34. [8639] 16. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southw estern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. [565]

17. Chadwick and Associates. 1992. Santa Ana River use attainability analysis. Volume 2: Aquatic biology, habitat and toxicity analys is, [CD-ROM]. Available: Riverside, CA : Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. [2004, February 11]. [46803] 18. Chaudhuri, R. K.; Ghosal, S. 1970. Triterpenes and st erols of the leaves of Arundo donax. Phytochemistry. 9: 1895-1896. [46764] 19. D'Antonio, Carla M. 2000. Fire, plant invasions, and global changes. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Hobbs, Richard J., eds. Invasive species in a changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press: 65-93. [37679] 20. D'Antonio, Carla M.; Haubensak, Karen. 1998. Community and ecosystem impacts of introduced species. Fremontia. 26(4): 13-18. [47114] 21. Daar, S. 1983. Using goats for brush contro l. The IPM Practitioner. 5(4): 4-6. [47110] 22. DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. 1998. Wetlands and ri parian ecosystems. In: DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. Fire's effects on ecosys tems. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 229-245. [29832] 23. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegeta tion: past, present, a nd future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097] 24. DiTomaso, Joseph M. 1998. Biology and ecology of gi ant reed. In: Bell, Carl E., ed. In: Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 1-5. [47117] 25. Douce, Richard S. 1993. The biological pollution of Arundo donax in river estuaries and beaches, [Online]. In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46976]
26. Douthit, Shelton. 1993. Arundo donax in the Sant a Ana River Basin. In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings,[Online]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46975]
27. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brow n, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecos ystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982] 28. Dudley, Tom L. 2000. Arundo donax L. In: Bossard, Carl a C.; Randall, John M.; Hoshovsky, Marc C., eds. Invasive plants of California's wildlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 53-58. [46806] 29. Dudley, Tom. 1998. Exotic plant inva sions in California riparian area s and wetlands. Fremontia. 26(4): 24- 29. [47116]
30. Dwire, Kathleen A.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 2003. Fire a nd riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western USA. In: Young, Michael K.; Gresswell, Robert E.; Luce, Charles H., guest eds. Selected papers from an international symposium on effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems in th e western USA; 2002 April 22- 

### Page 20 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html24; Boise, ID. In: Forest Ecology and Management. Spec ial Issue: The effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems in the western US A. New York: Elsevier Science B. V; 178(1-2): 61-74. [44923] 31. El-Enany, M. A. M. 1985. Life history studies on Aponychus solimani Zaher, Gomaa and El-Enany with first description of adult male and imm ature stages (Acari: Tetranychidae). Bu lletin of the Zoological Society of Egypt. 35: 86-91. [46799] 32. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 33. Felger, Richard S. 1990. Non-native plants of Organ Pipe Cactus National M onument, Arizona. Tech. Rep. No. 31. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resource s, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 93 p. [14916] 34. Finn, Monica; Martin, Harley; Minnesang, Dave. 1990. Control of giant reed grass in a southern California riparian habitat. Restoration & Ma nagement Notes. 8(1): 53-54. [14514] 35. Finney, Mark A.; Martin, Robert E. 1989. Fire history in a Sequoia sempervirens forest at Salt Point State Park, California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 1451-1457. [9845] 36. Floyd, M. Lisa; Romme, William H.; Hanna, David D. 2000. Fire history and vege tation pattern in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecol ogical Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590] 37. Frandsen, Paul; Jackson, Nelroy. 1993. The impactof Arundo donax on flood control and endangered species. In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings, [Onlin e]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46977] 38. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental featur es of forest and range ecosyste ms. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
39. Ghosal, R. K.; Chaudhuri, R. K.; Dutta, S. K.; Bh attacharya, S. K. 1972. Occu rrence of curarimimetic indoles in the flowers of Arundo dona x. Planta Medica. 21: 22-28. [46763] 40. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1979. Aquatic an d wetland plants of southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. 712 p. [16906]
41. Gottfried, Gerald J.; Swetnam, Thomas W.; Allen, Craig D.; Betanc ourt, Julio L.; Chung-MacCoubrey, Alice L. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Finch, Deborah M.; Tainter, Joseph A., eds. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky M ountain Forest and Range E xperiment Station: 95-132. [26188] 42. Greenlee, Jason M.; Langenheim, Jean H. 1990. Historic fire regimes and their relation to vegetation patterns in the Monterey Bay area of California. The American Midl and Naturalist. 124(2): 239-253. [15144] 43. Guyette, Richard; McGinnes, E. A., Jr. 1982. Fire hist ory of an Ozark glade in Missouri. Transactions, Missouri Academy of Science. 16: 85-93. [5170] 44. Hendrickson, William H. 1972. Perspective on fire and ecosystems in th e United States. In: Fire in the environment: Symposium proceedings; 1972 May 1- 5; Denver, CO. FS-276. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 29-33. In c ooperation with: Fire Services of Canada, Mexico, and the United States; Members of the Fire Management Study Group; North American Forestry Commission; FAO. [17276]
45. Henrickson, James; Johnston, Marshall C. 1986. Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert. In: Barlow, Jon C.; Powell, A. Michael; Timmermann, Barbara N., eds. Chihuahuan Desert--U.S. and Mexico, II: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on resources of the Chi huahuan Desert region; 1983 October 20- 21; Alpine, TX. Alpine, TX: Sul Ro ss State University, Chihuahuan De sert Research Institute: 20-39. [12979] 

### Page 21 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html46. Heyerdahl, Emily K.; Berry, Dawn; Agee, James K. 1994. Fire history database of the western United States. Final report. Inte ragency agreement: U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency DW12934530; U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService PNW-93-0300; University of Washington 61-2239. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, P acific Northwest Research Station; University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 28 p. [+ appendices]. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [27979] 47. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plan ts of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
48. Horton, Jerome S. 1949. Trees and shrubs for erosion control of southern Califo rnia mountains. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Ra nge Experiment Station; California Department of Natural Resource s, Division of Forestry. 72 p. [10689] 49. Hoshovsky, Marc. 1986. Element stewardship abstract : Arundo donax--giant reed, [Online]. In: Invasives on the web: The Nature Conservancy wildland invasive specie s program. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy (Producer). Available: http://tn cweeds.ucdavis.edu/esa docs/documnts/arundon.html [ 2004, March 16]. [46802]
50. Iverson, Mark E. 1993. Effects of Arundo dona x on water resources. In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings, [Online]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres.ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impacts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46979] 51. Jackson, George C.; Nunez, Josefina Rivera. 1964. Iden tification of silica present in the giant-reed (Arundo donax L.). Journal of Agriculture of University of Puerto Rico. 48: 60-62. [46766] 52. Jackson, Nelroy E. 1998. Chemical control of gian t reed (Arundo donax) and saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). In: Bell, Carl E., e d. In: Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 33-42. [47122] 53. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. [28762] 54. Kan, Tamara. 1998. The Nature Conservancy's approachto weed control. Fremontia. 26(4): 44-48. [47115] 55. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized chec klist and atlas with biological attr ibutes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenla nd. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Me acham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD- ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature C onservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service. [36715]
56. Kartesz, John Thomas. 1988. A flora of Nevada. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 1729 p. [In 2 volumes]. Dissertation. [42426] 57. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell , John Thomas; McClinto ck, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563] 58. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fireregimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., te ch. coords. Fire regimes and ecosystem properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11- 15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-277. [4395]
59. Kucera, Clair L. 1981. Grasslands and fire. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech . coords. Fire regimes and ecosyste m properties: Proceedings of the conference; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washingt on, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 90-111. [4389] 60. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geo g raphical Society . 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455] 

### Page 22 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html61. Lonard, Robert I.; Judd, Frank W. 1993. Phytogeography of the woody flora of the lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 45(2): 133-147. [22040]
62. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176] 63. Mason, Herbert L. 1957. A flora of the marshes of Califo rnia. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 878 p. [16905] 64. McPherson, Guy R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. In: McClaran, Mitchel P.; Van Devender, Thomas R., eds. The desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press: 130-151. [26576]
65. Mescheloff, Efraim; Rosen, David. 1990. Biosystematic studies on the Aphidiidae of Israel (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea). 3. The genera Adialytus and Lysiphle bus. Israel Journal of Entomology. 24: 35-50. [46800] 66. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occident alis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. Th e Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [25666] 67. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the Hi gh Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalis t. 27(1): 87-98. [5916] 68. Motamed, Erica R.; Wijte, Ant onia H. B. M. 1998. Rooting by stem fragments from hanging and upright stems of giant reed (Arundo donax). In : Bell, Carl E., ed. In: Arundo and sa ltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 69. [47127] 69. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924] 70. Myers, Ronald L. 2000. Fire in tropical and subtr opical ecosystems. In: Brow n, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecos ystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 161-173. [36985] 71. Nixon, Elray S.; Willett, R. Larry. 1974. Vegetative analysis of the floodpl ain of the Trinity River, Texas. Contract No. DACW6-74-C-0030. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Fort Worth, Texas. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publishe r unknown]. 267 p. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Scie nces Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20420] 72. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. Ja mes; Brown, James K.; Go ttfried, Gerald J.; Haas e, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S. ; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecos ystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol . 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky M ountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978] 73. Peck, George G. 1998. Hydroponic grow th characteristics of Arundo dona x L. under salt stress. In: Bell, Carl E., ed. In: Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtvil le, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 71. [47128]
74. Perdue, Robert E., Jr. 1958. Arundo donax--source of musical reeds and industr ial cellulose. Economic Botany. 12: 368-404. [46765] 75. Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditi ons pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. In: Monsen, St ephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., comps. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands ; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Servic e, Intermountain Research Station: 31-36. [24249] 76. Quinnild, Clayton L.; Cosby, Hugh E. 1958. Relicts of climax vegetation on two mesas in western North Dakota. Ecology. 39(1): 29-32. [1925] 

### Page 23 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html77. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E. ; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606] 78. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and st atistical plant geography. Ox ford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 79. Rezk, Malak R.; Edany, Taha Y. 1979. Comparative res ponses of two reed species to water table levels. Egyptian Journal of Botany. 22(2): 157-172. [47113] 80. Rieger, John P.; Kreager, D. Ann. 1989. Giant reed (A rundo donax): a climax community of the riparian zone. In: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's: Proceedi ngs of the California Riparian Systems conference; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Se rvice, Pacific Southwest Forest an d Range Experiment Station: 222-225. [13884] 81. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring an d fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. [16579] 82. Schmidly, David J.; Ditton, Robert B. 1979. Relating human activities and biological resources in riparian habitats of western Texas. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCo rmick, J. Frank, technical c oordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodpl ain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proc eedings of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Ca llaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 107-116. [4356] 83. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structur e and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064] 84. Scott, Gregory D. 1993. Fire threat from Arundo dona x. In: Arundo donax workshop proceedings, [Online]. Team Arundo del Norte (Producer). Available: http//ceres .ca.gov/tadn/ecology_impac ts/ta_proceedings.html [2004, February 25]. [46978] 85. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangela nd cover types of the United Stat es. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362] 86. Stalter, Richard; Baden, John. 1994. A twenty year comp arison of vegetation of th ree abandoned rice fields, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Castanea. 59(1): 69-77. [26043] 87. Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Factor s influencing ecosystem integrity. In: Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. Southern California mount ains and foothills assess ment: Habitat and species conservation issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-172. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific So uthwest Research St ation: 61-109. [35519] 88. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comp rising secondary plant succes sion in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Po stfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Scie nces Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. [20090] 89. Stromberg, Mark R.; Kephart, Paul; Yadon, Vern. 2001. Composition, invasibility, a nd diversity in coastal California grasslands. Madrono. 48(4): 236-252. [41371] 90. Stuart, John D. 1987. Fire history of an old-growth fo rest of Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forest in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, Calif ornia. Madrono. 34(2): 128-141. [7277] 91. Swenson, E. A. 1988. Progress in the understanding of how to reestablish native riparian plants in New Mexico. In: Mutz, K. M.; Cooper, D. J.; Scott, M. L. ; Miller, L. K., tech. coords. Restoration, creation and management of wetland and ripari an ecosystems in the AmericanWest: Symposium proceedings; 1988 November 14-16; Denver, CO. Denver, CO: Society of Wetland Scientists , Rocky Mountain Chapter: 144-150. [36362] 92. Swetnam, Thomas W.; Baisan, Chri stopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a 

### Page 24 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.htmlMexican oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in s outheastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; Hern andez C., Victor Manuel; Ortega-Rubio, Alfred; Hamre, R. H., tech. coords. Ecology and management of oak and associated woodlands : perspectives in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico: Proceedings; 1992 April 27 -30; Sierra Vista, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-218. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Ag riculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-173. [19759] 93. Tracy, James L.; DeLoach, C. Jack. 1998. Suitability of classical biological control for giant reed (Arundo donax) in the United States. In: Bell, Carl E., ed. In : Arundo and saltcedar: the de adly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 73-108. [47129]
94. Tucker, R. W. E. 1940. An account of Diatraea saccharalis F. with special refe rence to its occurrence in Barbados. Tropical Agriculture. 17(7): 133-138. [46981] 95. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest. 1993. Eradication of Arundo donax: San Francisquito and Soleda d Canyons. Environmental Assessment. Arcadia, CA: Angeles National Forest. 89 p. [46798] 96. U.S. Department of Agricultur e, Natural Resources Conservati on Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http ://plants.usda.gov/. [34262] 97. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 2002. Fina l recovery plan: Southwes tern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), [Online]. Albuquerque, NM : Southwestern Willow Flyc atcher Recovery Team (Producer). Available: http:/ /arizonaes.fws.gov/WSSFFINALRecPl an.htm [2003, June 19]. [44503] 98. Van Devender, Thomas R.; Felger, Richard S.; Bur quez M., Alberto. 1997. Exotic plants in the Sonoran Desert region, Arizona and Sonora. In: Kelly, M.; Wagner, E.; Warner, P., ed s. Proceedings, California Exotic Pest Plant Council symposium; 1997 October 2-4; Conc ord, CA. Volume 3. Berkele y, CA: California Exotic Pest Plant Council: 10-15. [44103]
99. Vartanian, Valerie. 1998. Destructive nature of arundo and tamarisk. In: Bell, Carl E., ed. In: Arundo and saltcedar: the deadly duo: Proceedi ngs of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 June 17; Ontario, CA. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 7-13. [47120] 100. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. [19698]
101. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; Grace, James B.; Hoch, Greg A.; Patterson, William A., III. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, Ja mes K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42- vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky M ountain Research Station: 53-96. [36983] 102. Wells, M. J.; Duggan, K.; Hendersen, L. 1980. Woody plant invaders of the central Transvaal. In: Proceedings, 3rd national weeds conference of South Af rica. Pretoria: National Weeds Conference of South Africa: 11-23. [47112] 103. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duan e; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944] 104. Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Postfire population dyna mics of Bromus japonicus. The American Midland Naturalist. 123: 301-308. [11150] 105. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stan ford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1025 p. [21993] 106. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620] 107. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 806 p. [28655] 

### Page 25 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html108. Wynd, F. L.; Steinbauer, George P.; Diaz, N. R. 1948. Arundo donax as a forage grass in sandy soils. Lloydia. 11(3): 181-184. [46982] 109. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. [2659]
110. Zembal, Richard. 1998. Habitat for th reatened habitat and endangered sp ecies--quarantine ar eas or control exotic weeds? In: Bell, Carl E., ed. Arundo and salt cedar: the deadly duo: Proceedings of a workshop on combating the threat from arundo and saltcedar; 1998 J une 17; Ontario, CA. Holtv ille, CA: University of California, Cooperative Extension: 15-20. [47121]

FEIS Home Pa g e 

### Page 26 of 26 Arundo donax

8/10/2011 http ://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ p lants/g raminoid/arudon/all.html