Giant Reed (Arundo donax)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Arundo donax L.
Common name(s):	Giant Reed

Map showing the present distribution of this weed.

Habitat:

A semi-aquatic emergent species, found in riparian and wetland systems, as well as floodplains, beaches, waste areas hillsides and open forest to 500m (DiTomaso. & Healy. 2003, Smith 1979 and Webb 1978).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
horticulture; pasture irrigation and forest private plantation; forest
public plantation; pasture dryland within 1 in 100 year flood extent.

Broad vegetation types
Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; swamp
scrub; sedge rich woodland; valley grassy forest; riverine grassy
woodland; riparian forest; and a riparian buffer zone of 10m for
rivers and 5m for creeks.

Colours indicate possibility of Arundo donax infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

map showing the potential distribution of arundo donax

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Can form dense clumps of up to 80 stems m^-2 and grow to 10m tall would cause a major impediment and if a track is opened unless controlled A.donax will soon re grow from rhizomes restricting access (Wijte etal 2005).	h	mh
2. Reduce tourism?	Used in some areas as an ornamental and for landscaping purposes (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999). However in the natural environment its encroachment on waterways restricts access and degraded fish habitat (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999), impacting on various recreational activities that use waterways particularly fishing.	mh	mh
3. Injurious to people?	Has a complex chemical composition and has been linked to incidents of contact dermatitis when used as reeds for woodwind instruments (McFadden, Ingram & Ryecroft. 1992 and Pascoal Neto etal 1997).	ml	m
4. Damage to cultural sites?	May have some aesthetic impact, can cause flooding to be more destructive potential for structural damage, however no impacts reported.	l	ml
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Can increase stream sedimentation and generally decrease flow particularly in flooding condition where debris from the plant can block flow and intensify flooding (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	h	h
6. Impact water quality?	By displacing tree species it reduces shading of the waterway, increasing temperature, and by decreasing flow can create stagnant pools (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	h	h
7. Increase soil erosion?	Historically used for erosion control and does reduce flow and increase sedimentation (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999), however during flood events rhizomes can be undercut and broken away potentially altering the course of flow (Wijte etal 2005).	m	h
8. Reduce biomass?	Can replace tree species such as willows in the US (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999). Has also been recorded to yield up to 100 dry tonnes per ha (Pascoal Neto etal 1997). Which with this biomass production in comparison to that of a fairly open riparian system would be an increase.	l	mh
9. Change fire regime?	A. donax has a high evaporation rate, is drought tolerant and can be highly flammable during drier times of the year. In California it has been reported as a driving factor in changing wetlands from that of flood disturbed to that of fire disturbed having a significant impact on the native species (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	h	h
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC= Sedgy Riverine Forest (E); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Murray Mallee; H CLIMATE potential. Can form monoculture in understorey.	h	mh
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Grassy Riverine Forest (D); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Murray Mallee; H CLIMATE potential. Can form monoculture in understorey.	h	mh
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Riverine Swamp Forest (LC); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Murray Mallee; H CLIMATE potential. Can form monoculture in understorey.	h	mh
11. Impact on structure?	Can eliminate over-storey species especially those that are sensitive to fire or frequent fire, otherwise will alter long term by preventing regeneration (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999). Arundo invasion also alters understorey often forming a dense monoculture (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	h
12. Effect on threatened flora?	Can completely replace existing vegetation or alter from that defined by flood events to one defined by fire events (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	h	mh
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Can alter habitat and provided little in the way of food, generally decreasing fauna diversity especially sensitive species (Herrera & Dudley. 2003).	h	m
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Can alter habitat and provided little in the way of food, generally decreasing fauna diversity (Herrera & Dudley. 2003).	h	m
15. Benefits fauna?	While structurally simpler than that of a native riparian system still provides some shelter for species Can alter habitat and provided little in the way of food, generally decreasing fauna diversity (Herrera & Dudley. 2003).	mh	mh
16. Injurious to fauna?	Twenty alkaloids have been isolated from the species (Khuzhaev. 2004). However if is used as a cropped fodder source for livestock as well as stock directly grazing the plant (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999). May have some impact on insect species as compounds reported from it have had an significant antifeedant effect on boll weevil (Miles etal 1993).	ml	m
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Eaten by goats (Gabr etal 1999).	ml	h
18. Provides harbor?	Dense clumps potentially shelter rabbits	h	ml
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Has been shown to have a minor allelopathic effect on mustard (Gupta & Saxena. 2004). Can be used as a fodder source and has been shown to be economically superior than sorghum when feeding lactating goats (Gabr etal 1999). Generally seen as beneficial or benign (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	l	mh
20. Impact quality?	No detrimental impacts on quality reported.	l	m
21. Affect land value?	High cost of control if control viewed as necessary may decrease land value.	ml	ml
22. Change land use?	Found to impact on mustard my have some impact on other crop species (Gupta & Saxena. 2004). It could itself be cropped for fodder or fibre or grazed.	ml	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Restricting movement especially around waterways, may increase mustering times or increase the need for troughs as water sources.	mh	m
24. Disease host/vector?	Found to be a host of the vector of Pierce’s disease a pathogen of grapevines (Herrera & Dudley. 2003). An alternate host for beet western yellows virus, sugarcane mosaic virus and maize dwarf mosaic virus (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	mh	h

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Seed germination requirements unknown. Ramets found not to emerge at constant temperatures of 7 or 8^oC under lab conditions (Spencer & Ksander. 2006). Also time of the year of collection was found to be the most important factor in the establishment of propagules (Decruyenaere & Holt. 2001).	mh	h
2. Establishment requirements?	Semi-aquatic emergent species therefore requiring water, however reported to thrive under well-developed canopy (Herrera & Dudley. 2003).	ml	h
3. How much disturbance is required?	Reported established in wetlands, riparian and riverine areas.	mh	h
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Semi-aquatic emergent (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	Found to retard the growth (root and shoot length) of mustard (Gupta & Saxena. 2004).	ml	m
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Can be cropped for fodder and for industrial cellulose and other purposes (Angelini, Ceccarini & Bonari. 2005 and DiTomaso. & Healy 2003), also above ground biomass can be burnt and will regrow from rhizomes (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003). Therefore able to recover from equivalent of heavy grazing, and while primary source of propagules is vegetative, moderate grazing not reported to disrupt flowering.	mh	mh
7. Normal growth rate?	Described as having a rapid growth rate, able to grow to 8m, reported to recover quickly after fire smothering out other species (Tracey & DeLoach. 1999).	h	h
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Fire Tolerant: Fire will remove canes and above ground biomass but not kill the rhizomes (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003). Changes fire dynamics of wetlands, promoting fire (Wijte etal 2005). Semi-Aquatic : Tolerant of Waterlogging. Tolerant of extended periods of drought (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003). Tolerat of salinity, reported in coastal areas however described as being best adapted above high tide areas (Webb 1978). Reported to be susceptible of freezing temperatures if prolonged or for regular periods (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	h
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Primary mode of reproduction reported over majority of world distribution is vegetative, however some populations in Asia have been reported to produce viable seed (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	mh
10. Number of propagules produced?	Ramets: Isolated rhizome segments and stem fragments with an intact axillary bud are capable of sprouting and being a new plant (Decruyenaere & Holt. 2001 and Wijte etal 2005). In dense clumps there may be up to 80 stems per m^-2 and stems can grow to 10m and a stem segment of 10cm even if split can establish (Wijte etal 2005). Therefore there is the potential for a dense clump to be broken up into 10x10x80=8000 propagules and that’s not including rhizomes that have a higher potential for establishment (Decruyenaere & Holt. 2001). Seed: While in most cases seed is reported as not viable, from images the production of inflorescences is substantial if they then set viable seed potential for high numbers (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	h
11. Propagule longevity?	Unknown seed longevity, primary mode of reproduction is vegetative (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	l	m
12. Reproductive period?	Perennial species, can form monocultures (DiTomaso. & Healy 2003).	h	h
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Vegetatively a new ramet can develop enough material for further vegetative reproduction within one season.	h	h
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Primary method of dispersal of vegetative propagules is through flood waters (Decruyenaere & Holt. 2001).	mh	h
15. How far do they disperse?	Flood waters can carry martial many kilometres.	h	m

References

Angelini L.G., Ceccarini L. & Bonari E. 2005, Biomass yield and energy balance of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cropped in central Italy as related to different management practices. Europe Journal of Agronomy. 22: 375-389.

Decruyenaere J.G. & Holt J.S. 2001, Seasonality of clonal propagation in giant reed, Weed science, 49: 760-767.

DiTomaso J.M. & Healy E.A. 2003, Aquatic and Riparian weeds of the West, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Gabr A.A., Mehrez A.Z., Soliman E.S.M. & El-Kholany M.E. 1999, Response of lactating goats to diets containing reeds grass (Arundo donax, L.) versus sorghum plants, Egyptian Journal of Nutritional and Feeds, 2: 297-307.

Gupta J. & Saxena M.K. 2004, Allelopathic interaction of terrestrial plants on mustard seed germination and seedling growth, Advances in Plant Sciences, 17:199-201.

Herrera A.M. & Dudley T.L 2003, Reduction of riparian arthropod abundance and diversity as a consequence of giant reed (Arundo donax) invasion, Biological Invasions, 5: 167-177.

Khuzhaev V.U. 2004, Alkaloids of the flora of Uzbekistan, Arundo donax, Chemistry of Natural Compounds, 40: 160-162

McFadden J.P., Ingram. M.J. & Ryecroft R.J.G. 1992, Contact allergy to cane reed in a clarinettist, Contact Dermatitis, 27: 117.

Miles. D.H., Tunsuwan. K., Chittawong. V., Kokpol U., Choudhary M.I. & Clardy J. 1993, Boll weevil antifeedants from Arundo donax, Phytochemistry, 34:1277-1279.

Pascoal Neto C., Seca A., Nunes A.M., Coimbra M.A., Domingues F., Evtuguin D., Silvestre A. & Cavaleiro J.A.S. 1997, Variations in chemical composition and structure of macromolecular components in different morphological regions and maturity stages of Arundo donax, Industrial Crops and Products. 6: 51-58.

Smith A.C. 1979, Flora Vitiensis nova: a new flora of Fiji. National Tropical Botanical Garden, Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii, Volume 1, 299-300 pp.
Spencer D.F. & Ksander G.G. 2006, Estimating Arundo donax ramet recruitment using degree-day based equations. Aquatic Botany (Article in Press)

Tracey J.L. & DeLoach C.J. 1999, Suitability of classical biological control for Giant Reed (Arundo donax) in the United States. Arundo and Saltcedar Management Workshop Proceedings 1998. Bell.C.E. (ed)

Webb J.W 1978, Establishment of vegetation for shoreline stabilization in Galveston Bay, Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International. 38: 3497.

Wijte A.H.B.M., Mizutani T., Motamed E.R., Merryfield M.L., Miller D.E. & Alexander D.E. 2005, Temperature and endogenous factors cause seasonal patterns in rooting by stem fragments of invasive Giant Reed, Arundo Donax (Poaceae). International Journal of Plant Sciences. 166: 507-517.

Global present distribution data references

Angelini L.G., Ceccarini L. & Bonari E. 2005, Biomass yield and energy balance of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cropped in central Italy as related to different management practices. Europe Journal of Agronomy. 22: 375-389.

Australian National Herbarium (ANH) 2006, Australia’s Virtual Herbarium, Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Plant Diversity and Research, viewed 8 Sep 2006 , http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database, viewed 8 Sep 2006. http://www.calflora.org/ .

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 8 Sep 2006, http://www.gbif.org/

Herrera A.M. & Dudley T.L 2003, Reduction of riparian arthropod abundance and diversity as a consequence of giant reed (Arundo donax) invasion. Biological Invasions. 5: 167-177.

Missouri Botanical Gardens (MBG) 2006, w³TROPICOS, Missouri Botanical Gardens Database, viewed 8 Sep 2006,
http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html

Spencer D.F., Liow P., Chan W.K., Ksander G.G. & Getsinger K.D. 2006, Estimating Arundo donax shoot biomass. Aquatic Botany. 84: 272-276.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top