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 Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2011, August 10]. FEIS ABBREVIATION: 

ARUDON 

SYNONYMS: 

None 

NRCS 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.forestryimages.org

James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, 

www.forestryimages.org

Arundo donax Page 1 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
The currently accepted scientific 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: 

Arundo donax L. var. versicolor (P. Mill) Stokes [53,107]. 

LIFE FORM: 

Graminoid 

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS: 

No 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 GENERAL DISTRIBUTION 

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 literature vary, 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 Middle East for thousands of years. In 

North America, it was intentionally introduced from the Mediterranean 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 throughout the warmer states as an 

ornamental and for erosion control 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 California (Robbins and others 1951, as cited in [49]).

According to Bell [11], giant reed is invasive throughout the warmer coastal freshwaters of the United States from Maryland 

westward to northern California. Wunderlin [107] recognizes the variety versicolor as occurring in Florida, and Jones and 

others [53] describe that variety as a cultivar. The literature contains specific references to the occurrence of giant reed in the 

4 provinces of Mexico listed below [2,61,82,98]. Giant reed is likely present 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 types, and forest and range cover types in which giant reed 

is known or thought to be invasive, as well as some that may be invaded by giant reed following disturbances in which 

vegetation is killed and/or removed and/or soil is disturbed (e.g. cultivation, fire, grazing, herbicide application, flooding). 

Giant reed is a hydrophyte and riparian areas or wetlands within these habitats could be subject to invasion by giant reed 

even if the habitat itself is not considered 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 prairies, 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 where giant reed is invasive. 

ECOSYSTEMS [38]: 

FRES12 Longleaf-slash pine 

FRES13 Loblolly-shortleaf pine

Arundo donax Page 2 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
FRES14 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-bur sage 

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.

Arundo donax Page 3 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
K043 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-threeawn 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-sacahuista 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-eastern 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 

Arundo donax Page 4 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
66 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-diamondleaf (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 

Arundo donax Page 5 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
208 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 woodland 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-Indiangrass-Texas wintergrass 

718 Mesquite-grama 

Arundo donax Page 6 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
719 Mesquite-liveoak-seacoast 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 Mexico 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 and associated plant communities is sparse. Most accounts discuss riparian and wetland habitat 

types without delineating species that occur with giant reed. In the absence of giant reed, coastal southern 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 areas 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. From Albuquerque north, nonnative Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 

often dominates riparian communities. Riparian thickets on the Rio Grande River in the 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 New 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 by singlewhorl burrobrush (Hymenoclea monogyra), Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), 

Arundo donax Page 7 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
littleleaf sumac (R. microphylla), and splitleaf brickellbush (Brickellia laciniata). Mule's fat occurs in all areas [23]. 

In riparian woodlands within the Chihuahuan desert, Hendrickson 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, Fremont 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 provides characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology, and is not meant for 

identification. Keys for identification 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 most of the United States, can be difficult to distinguish. Proper identification of giant 

reed is essential before implementing control measures [24]. 

Giant reed is a tall, erect, perennial graminoid. It is the largest member of the 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 are 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. Bases of the leaves are cordate and more-or-less hairy-tufted, persisting long after the

blades have fallen [74]. Giant reed has large plume-like panicles. Spikelets 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, sometimes 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 needed 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 viability, dormancy, germination and seedling 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 available on this topic. 

Pollination: No information is available 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]. 

Arundo donax Page 8 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Seed banking: No information is available 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 rhizomes 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 in the first 150 days. Under optimal 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 vegetative reproduction. This 

occurs either via underground rhizome extension or from 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 suggest that rhizomes buried 

under as much as 3 to 10 feet (1-3 m) of alluvium can "readily resprout" (R. Dale, personal communication in [28]). 

Much of the cultivation of giant reed throughout the world is initiated by planting rhizomes 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 recommended plants for erosion control [48] states pieces of giant reed rhizomes can be buried to 

establish the plant. A 1988 paper describes giant reed as a planted rhizome which "performs 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 America 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 and other wet sites [11]. It is well adapted for establishment and 

spread in riparian areas with regular flood cycles (see Asexual regeneration). In California, it is most commonly associated 

with 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]. In southern California giant reed reaches peak abundance downstream 

along major rivers in coastal basins, and has generally not spread up the steep, narrow canyons that characterize lower 

montane areas [87]. It establishes primarily on streamside microsites, but can spread beyond the zone occupied by native 

riparian vegetation [24,28,102], and can occur on dry riverbanks 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 magnitude of river flow contribute to this pattern of distribution [80]. 

Giant reed tolerates excessive salinity and periods of excessive moisture [74]. In South Carolina, it has invaded abandoned 

rice fields and grows in brackish water [86]. In a greenhouse experiment designed to test the tolerance of giant reed to salt 

stress, Peck [73] determined giant reed can grow in saline conditions and may be able to invade and 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; however, the sources and context of this information are unclear. Stephenson and 

Calcarone [87] suggest that it requires "well-developed" soils to become established, while DiTomaso [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 precipitation 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 

grows at altitudes to 8,000 feet (2,438 m) in the Himalayas. 

Arundo donax Page 9 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Elevation ranges reported for giant reed in other areas include: 

Nevada: 2,500 to 4,000 feet (760-1,220 m) [56] 

New 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-successional 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 giant reed and spread pieces downstream where 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 become pure stands of giant reed 

[10,80,95]. 

Although evidence is limited and anecdotal, 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 cycle perpetuated by giant reed invasion in 

southern California riparian areas. Because giant reed produces abundant biomass (i.e., fuel), is "extremely flammable", and 

responds with rapid growth from sprouting rhizomes after top-kill, 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 translocate 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 REGENERATION STRATEGY 

FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS: 

Fire adaptations: As of this writing (2004), information on fire adaptations of giant reed are limited to anecdotal 

accounts and assertions based on known biological attributes. Giant reed's extensive 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 regimes: With the exception of California, almost no published information is available 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]

Arundo donax Page 10 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
plant communities in which giant reed is invasive, although giant 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, microclimate, geomorphology, and vegetation may lead to differences in fire behavior and fire 

effects between riparian areas and surrounding uplands. Riparian areas may act as a fire barrier or a fire corridor, depending 

on topography, weather, and fuel characteristics [30]. Recovery of riparian vegetation depends on fire severity and postfire 

hydrology [22]. 

Dwire and Kauffman [30] indicate that riparian microclimates are generally characterized by cooler air temperature, lower 

daily maximum air temperature, and higher relative humidity than the adjacent uplands, contributing to higher fuel moisture 

content and presumably lowering the intensity, severity, and frequency of fire in riparian areas compared to adjacent 

uplands. Similarly, Bell [11] suggests that fire is uncommon in riparian areas in southern California, and that native riparian 

species are not well adapted to frequent or severe fire. In this area, lightning-ignited wildfires usually occur in late fall, 

winter, and early spring when riparian vegetation is typically moist and green and would act as a fire break [11]. In southern 

California, riparian areas invaded by giant reed often occur within grasslands or chaparral shrublands. The limited available 

research from such ecosystems suggests longer fire return intervals and lower-severity 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 southern California. Although evidence is entirely anecdotal, 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 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 behavior and the fire regime (sensu [14,19]). Giant reed is among the most productive of plant 

communities and can produce 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 invasion 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 Riverside 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 aggressively 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 changing riparian corridors from barriers to the spread of 

fires into wicks that carry fire up and downstream, into highway bridges or crowns of native, 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 the underground rhizomes and probably favors giant reed regeneration 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. The aquatic plants in the stream were 

the only plants other than giant reed that were recovering within the first few weeks of burning. In this way, fire gives giant

reed an advantage over native riparian plants, 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" communities, as has occurred on the Santa Ana River. 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 little research regarding fire regimes and fire return intervals in riparian areas. However, 

riparian communities may be influenced by the fire regimes of adjacent and surrounding plant communities. The following 

table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where riparian vegetation may include giant reed, 

though its invasiveness in many of these communities has not yet been demonstrated. For further information on fire 

regimes in these communities, see the FEIS summary on the dominant species listed below. 

Fire Return Interval 

Arundo donax Page 11 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Community 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 gerardii var. gerardiiSchizachyrium scoparium < 10 [59,72]

Nebraska sandhills prairie Andropogon gerardii var. 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/Pseudoroegneria 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-Pleuraphis 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 

pennsylvanica < 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]

juniper-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]

Arundo donax Page 12 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Everglades 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 elliottii var. 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-Liquidambar styracifluaUlmus americana < 35 to 200 [101]

galleta-threeawn shrubsteppe Pleuraphis jamesii-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-Buchloe 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]

Arundo donax Page 13 of 26

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

**mean 

POSTFIRE REGENERATION 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: 

No 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-Betula 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]

Arundo donax Page 14 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
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 the underground rhizomes. 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 (Joyce, personal 

observation in [95]). 

DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE: 

No 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 remove 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 available in the literature on the 

efficacy of such approaches. A review by Dudley [28] suggests that in most circumstances burning of live or chemically 

treated giant reed should not be attempted, as it cannot kill the underground rhizomes and probably favors giant reed 

regeneration over native riparian species. Additionally, burning giant reed infestations includes risks of uncontained fire, 

potential damage of desirable species, and difficulties of promoting fire through patchily distributed stands [28]. 

A review by Hoshovsky [49] suggests that a flame thrower or weed burner device can be used as a spot treatment to heatgirdle stems at the base of giant reed plants. 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 cost-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 increases the threat of wildfire in the area (also see Fire regimes), possibly 

threatening life and property. They suggest that removal of giant reed is the most feasible alternative to reduce the risk of 

wildfire. Wildfire is common in the chaparral vegetation surrounding riparian areas of these canyons; however, the presence 

of large, dense stands of giant reed in riparian areas creates a novel fire hazard that 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 management resources (J. Wright, Riverside County 

Fire Dept.; R. Hawkins, Cleveland 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 native species of wildlife [11]. Bell [11] 

speculates that insects are sparse in sites dominated by giant reed because of abundant chemical 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 grazers. These chemicals include silica [51,74], triterpines, sterols [18], cardiac glycosides, 

curare-mimicking indoles [39], hydroxamic acid, and numerous other alkaloids (Bell [11] and references therein).

Arundo donax Page 15 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Giant 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 low 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 structure 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 implicated in the decline of native stream 

fishes including the arroyo chub, three-spined stickleback, 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 flycatcher, 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 abundance and diversity of invertebrates were also documented in giant reed thickets 

in southern California compared with those 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 for thatching roofs of sheds, barns and other buildings [49]. Mexican 

campesinos use new tillers of giant reed for roofing and construction materials. It is the most important construction material

in the Juamave region of Mexico [2]. Giant reed makes a good quality paper, and in Italy it is used in the manufacture of 

rayon [24]. 

Giant reed is used to make reeds for a variety of musical instruments including bagpipes [11,74]. Reeds for woodwind 

musical instruments are still made from the culms of giant reed, and no satisfactory substitutes 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 used giant reed to line underground grain storage bins, and mummies from the 4th 

century A.D. were wrapped in giant reed leaves. Additional uses include basket-making, 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 southern 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 forms monocultural stands that physically inhibit 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 vegetation are impacted by giant reed. Of the 

Nutritional content of giant reed. Results are an average of 2 samples for each category 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

Arundo donax Page 16 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
impacted acres, 535 acres (217 ha) are monospecific stands of giant reed. 

Although evidence is entirely anecdotal, 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 cycle. The result of such cycle is loss of native riparian species, 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, resulting 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 (NH4

+

) to toxic ammonia 

(NH3

), which further degrades water quality for aquatic species 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 pollutant of river estuaries and beaches. It is often ripped out of the soft bottoms 

of rivers during storms and washed downstream into flood control channels [25]. Giant reed growing in flood control 

channels necessitates constant removal. It can form debris dams against flood control and transportation structures such as 

bridges and culverts [29,37]. Because the rhizomes of giant reed grow close to the surface, they break off during floods. 

When the root mass breaks away during these floods the riverbanks are destabilized. Destabilization of riverbanks is the 

leading cause of flooding in southern California [99]. 

Iverson [50] provides insight into the economics of giant reed's impact 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 Association it would cost 

approximately $12,000,000 in 1993 dollars [50]. 

Control: A suite of methods is needed to control giant reed depending 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 means 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 required permits, and private 

landowners must provide work crews access to land [99]. 

To adequately coordinate removal of giant reed in a watershed, 3 programs need to be operating: 1) create a functional 

mapped database that contains hydrology, land ownership/use, infestations, project sites, etc.; 2) coordination with 

regulatory agencies to plan mitigation project sites to fit within other current projects; 3) regular meetings of stakeholders to 

share information regarding threats from giant 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 movement of plant parts is minimized. 

Integrated management: A popular approach to treating giant reed has been 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 growth compared with tall, established plants, and 

coverage is often better because of the shorter and uniform-height plants. However, cutting the stems 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 requires 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 after flowering. The advantage of this treatment is that it requires less herbicide and 

the herbicide can be applied more precisely. 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 giant reed was conducted in southern California by 

Caltrans, the state transportation agency. Results indicate cut-stem treatments, regardless of time of application (May, July, 

or September), provided 100% control with no resprouting. In contrast, virtually all plants that were left untreated following

Arundo donax Page 17 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
cutting resprouted vigorously. Foliar treatments produced highly variable results with 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 controlling giant reed with glyphosate [34]. 

In 1995, a full-scale project for control of giant reed was initiated 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 November, 1995. Resprouts in spring, 1996, were 

treated with a solution of glyphosate in April, May, July, and August. Resprouts were treated again in June and September, 

1997. In 1998, giant reed continued to resprout in the treatment 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 eradicated by manual methods, especially where sensitive 

native plants and wildlife might be damaged by other methods. Hand pulling works with new plants less than 6.6 feet (2 m) 

in height, but care must be taken 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 removed and burned on site to prevent rerooting. The fibrous nature of giant reed makes using a 

chipper difficult (R. Dale personal communication in [28]). For larger infestations on accessible terrain, heavier tools (rotary 

brush cutter, chainsaw, or tractor-mounted mower) may facilitate biomass removal followed by rhizome removal or 

chemical treatment. Such methods may be of limited value on complex or sensitive 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, subject to local fire regulations, because of the difficulty and expense involved in 

collecting and removing or chipping all material. 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 search for biological control agents for giant 

reed in the United States. Areas dominated by giant reed in North America are essentially devoid of wildlife. 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, although corn borers (Eizaguirre and others 1990 in [11]), spider mites [31], and 

aphids [65] have been reported in the Mediterranean. A sugar cane moth-borer in Barbados 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 utilizes 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 rot, lesions, crown rust, and stem 

speckle, but none seem to have seriously 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 giant reed is most effective after flowering and before dormancy. During this 

period, usually mid-August to early November in southern California, the plants are actively translocating nutrients to the 

root mass in preparation for winter dormancy. This may result in effective translocation of herbicide to the roots [11]. 

Comparison trials on the Santa Margarita River in southern California indicate foliar application 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 creating an additional advantage in dealing with the biomass. Cut 

green stems might take root if left on damp soil and are very 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 concentrations used to treat giant reed. 

In the proceedings from a workshop on giant reed control published online, Bell [11] asserts pure stands of giant reed (>80%

canopy cover) are most efficiently and effectively treated by aerial application of an herbicide concentrate, usually by 

helicopter. Helicopter application can treat at least 124 acres (50 ha) per day. In areas where helicopter access is impossible

and giant reed makes up the understory, where patches are too small to make aerial application financially efficient, or 

where giant reed is mixed with native plants (<80% canopy coverage), herbicides must be applied by hand. 

Arundo donax Page 18 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
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 events 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 regimes for maintenance and reproduction. If 

natural flood dynamics are maintained as part of an integrated management approach, 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, Khurshid. 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 management: Cross-cultural examples of the small farmers of Jaumave, 

Mexico, and the southern Miwok of the Yosemite region. Arid Lands Newsletter. 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 Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. 

[11990] 

4. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. 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 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: University 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/ecology_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. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM 

physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western 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. 

Arundo donax Page 19 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Baghdad: Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Agriculture: 588 p. [44043] 

14. Brooks, Matthew L.; D'Antonio, Carla M.; Richardson, 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 New 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 southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 

472-484. [565] 

17. Chadwick and Associates. 1992. Santa Ana River use attainability analysis. Volume 2: Aquatic biology, 

habitat and toxicity analysis, [CD-ROM]. Available: Riverside, CA: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. 

[2004, February 11]. [46803] 

18. Chaudhuri, R. K.; Ghosal, S. 1970. Triterpenes and sterols 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 control. The IPM Practitioner. 5(4): 4-6. [47110] 

22. DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. 1998. Wetlands and riparian ecosystems. In: 

DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. Fire's effects on ecosystems. New York: John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc: 229-245. [29832] 

23. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097] 

24. DiTomaso, Joseph M. 1998. Biology and ecology of giant 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 Santa 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: 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 Mountain Research Station: 35-51. [36982] 

28. Dudley, Tom L. 2000. Arundo donax L. In: Bossard, Carla 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 invasions in California riparian areas and wetlands. Fremontia. 26(4): 24-

29. [47116] 

30. Dwire, Kathleen A.; Kauffman, J. Boone. 2003. Fire and 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 the western USA; 2002 April 22-

Arundo donax Page 20 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
24; Boise, ID. In: Forest Ecology and Management. Special Issue: The effects of wildland fire on aquatic 

ecosystems in the western USA. 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 immature stages (Acari: Tetranychidae). Bulletin 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 Monument, Arizona. Tech. Rep. 

No. 31. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, 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 & Management 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 vegetation pattern in Mesa 

Verde National Park, Colorado, USA. Ecological Applications. 10(6): 1666-1680. [37590] 

37. Frandsen, Paul; Jackson, Nelroy. 1993. The impact of Arundo donax on flood control and endangered 

species. 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]. [46977] 

38. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. 

Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. 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.; Bhattacharya, S. K. 1972. Occurrence of curarimimetic 

indoles in the flowers of Arundo donax. Planta Medica. 21: 22-28. [46763] 

40. Godfrey, Robert K.; Wooten, Jean W. 1979. Aquatic and 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.; Betancourt, 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 Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 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 Midland Naturalist. 124(2): 239-253. [15144] 

43. Guyette, Richard; McGinnes, E. A., Jr. 1982. Fire history 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 the 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 cooperation 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 Chihuahuan Desert region; 1983 October 20-

21; Alpine, TX. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University, Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute: 20-39. [12979]

Arundo donax Page 21 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
46. Heyerdahl, Emily K.; Berry, Dawn; Agee, James K. 1994. Fire history database of the western United 

States. Final report. Interagency agreement: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DW12934530; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service PNW-93-0300; University of Washington 61-2239. Seattle, WA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific 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 plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 1400 p. [21992] 

48. Horton, Jerome S. 1949. Trees and shrubs for erosion control of southern California mountains. Berkeley, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, California Forest and Range Experiment Station; 

California Department of Natural Resources, 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 species program. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy 

(Producer). Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/arundon.html [2004, March 16]. [46802] 

50. Iverson, Mark E. 1993. Effects of Arundo donax 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. Identification 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 giant reed (Arundo donax) and saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima). 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: 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 approach to weed control. Fremontia. 26(4): 44-48. [47115] 

55. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of 

the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, 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 Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 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; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona 

flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563] 

58. Keeley, Jon E. 1981. Reproductive cycles and fire regimes. In: Mooney, H. A.; Bonnicksen, T. M.; 

Christensen, N. L.; Lotan, J. E.; Reiners, W. A., tech. 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 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: 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 Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455] 

Arundo donax Page 22 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
61. 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 California. 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 Lysiphlebus. Israel Journal of Entomology. 24: 35-50. [46800] 

66. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in 

southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. [25666] 

67. Moir, William H. 1982. A fire history of the High Chisos, Big Bend National Park, Texas. The 

Southwestern Naturalist. 27(1): 87-98. [5916] 

68. Motamed, Erica R.; Wijte, Antonia 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 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: 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 subtropical ecosystems. 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 Mountain Research Station: 161-173. 

[36985] 

71. Nixon, Elray S.; Willett, R. Larry. 1974. Vegetative analysis of the floodplain 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]: [Publisher unknown]. 267 p. On file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20420] 

72. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, 

Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, 

woodland, and grassland ecosystems. 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 Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978] 

73. Peck, George G. 1998. Hydroponic growth characteristics of Arundo donax 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. Holtville, CA: University of California, Cooperative 

Extension: 71. [47128] 

74. Perdue, Robert E., Jr. 1958. Arundo donax--source of musical reeds and industrial cellulose. Economic 

Botany. 12: 368-404. [46765] 

75. Peters, Erin F.; Bunting, Stephen C. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and postoccurrence of annual grasses on the 

Snake River Plain. In: Monsen, Stephen 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 Service, 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] 

Arundo donax Page 23 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
77. 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 statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 

p. [2843] 

79. Rezk, Malak R.; Edany, Taha Y. 1979. Comparative responses 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 (Arundo donax): a climax community of the riparian 

zone. In: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's: Proceedings 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 Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 222-225. 

[13884] 

81. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and 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; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for 

protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the 

symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway 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 structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. [7064] 

84. Scott, Gregory D. 1993. Fire threat from Arundo donax. 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]. [46978] 

85. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range 

Management. 152 p. [23362] 

86. Stalter, Richard; Baden, John. 1994. A twenty year comparison of vegetation of three abandoned rice fields, 

Georgetown County, South Carolina. Castanea. 59(1): 69-77. [26043] 

87. Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Factors influencing ecosystem integrity. In: Stephenson, 

John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: Habitat and species 

conservation issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-172. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 61-109. [35519] 

88. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky 

Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. 

[20090] 

89. Stromberg, Mark R.; Kephart, Paul; Yadon, Vern. 2001. Composition, invasibility, and diversity in coastal 

California grasslands. Madrono. 48(4): 236-252. [41371] 

90. Stuart, John D. 1987. Fire history of an old-growth forest of Sequoia sempervirens (Taxodiaceae) forest in 

Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California. 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 riparian ecosystems in the American West: 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, Christopher H.; Caprio, Anthony C.; Brown, Peter M. 1992. Fire history in a 

Arundo donax Page 24 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
Mexican oak-pine woodland and adjacent montane conifer gallery forest in southeastern Arizona. In: Ffolliott, 

Peter F.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Bennett, Duane A.; Hernandez 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 Agriculture, 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 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: 73-108. [47129] 

94. Tucker, R. W. E. 1940. An account of Diatraea saccharalis F. with special reference 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 Soledad Canyons. Environmental Assessment. Arcadia, CA: Angeles National 

Forest. 89 p. [46798] 

96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, 

[Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262] 

97. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 2002. Final recovery plan: Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus), [Online]. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team 

(Producer). Available: http://arizonaes.fws.gov/WSSFFINALRecPlan.htm [2003, June 19]. [44503] 

98. Van Devender, Thomas R.; Felger, Richard S.; Burquez M., Alberto. 1997. Exotic plants in the Sonoran 

Desert region, Arizona and Sonora. In: Kelly, M.; Wagner, E.; Warner, P., eds. Proceedings, California Exotic 

Pest Plant Council symposium; 1997 October 2-4; Concord, CA. Volume 3. Berkeley, 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: Proceedings 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, 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 Mountain 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 Africa. Pretoria: National Weeds Conference of South 

Africa: 11-23. [47112] 

103. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; 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 dynamics of Bromus japonicus. The American Midland 

Naturalist. 123: 301-308. [11150] 

105. Wiggins, Ira L. 1980. Flora of Baja California. Stanford, 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] 

Arundo donax Page 25 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011
108. 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 threatened habitat and endangered species--quarantine areas or control 

exotic weeds? In: Bell, Carl E., ed. 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: 15-20. [47121] 

FEIS Home Page 

Arundo donax Page 26 of 26

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/arudon/all.html 8/10/2011