"Aggressive monoculture;" "monotypic stands;" "invasive weed;" "degraded wetland;" these are among the common phrases(without expletives) used to describe, and then dismiss, phragmites(common reed). One hears reed wetlands described as barren, unproductive, not as good as other wetland types, worthy of eradication and replacement with something better, often without prior inventory. This observer quarrels with that simplistic view, and offers an apologia for reed based on 28 years of conservation advocacy work, helicopter surveys and censuses, numerous field trips to all parts of New Jersey, and habitat inventories of river systems rife with reed.(For a discussion of phrag natural history, see NJA,spring 96).

Discussions about reed and decisions to mitigate, eradicate and replace reed are frequently clouded by value judgments and prior assumptions shared by regulators, land managers, consultants and some biologists. The starting point is often the broad-brush notion that spartina is "better" than reed, for example. Actually, spartina is different, not necessarily better. "Better" is a loaded word. A given spartina marsh might be more "productive" than a given phrag marsh, but the reverse may also be true, and the only way to make that judgment is case by case inventory.

Complicating the judgment is another assumption that restoring a wetland to "how it used to be" always is better or desirable or necessary. It may be, but longterm, maybe not. Wetlands are dynamic, not static. They change over time. The Hackensack Meadows went from cedar swamp to emergent marsh. Diking, ditching, roads, utility lines and the like currently favor phragmites, but the rise in sea level suggests that some of today's reed marshes will in time revert to spartina. Some early evidence of that can be seen in the Hackensack Meadowlands.

Another major concern of Audubon's is that the values and functions of phrag are less well understood than those of other wetland types. That lack of awareness leads to a conditioned reflex that phragmites removal is the preferred alternative. Actually, reed marshes can be very valuable bird habitats. A classic example is the Kearny Marsh in the Hackensack Meadowlands where the diversity of wetland nesting species was found to be extraordinary(see Birds of the Kearny Marsh, NJA Supplement(now Records of NJ Birds), Vol. iv, no. 5, winter 1978). The roster includes Pied-billed Grebe, both night-herons, American and Least bitterns, Green Heron, coot, Common Moorhen; 8 species of waterfowl(at least, including New Jersey-rare Green-winged Teal and Ruddy Duck) King and Virginia rails, grackles, redwings, Swamp Sparrow, Marsh Wren, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow Warbler, and Willow Flycatcher(an article is in press from this author documenting all the bird species nesting in reed in New Jersey). Note that a number of the above species are listed species in New Jersey, which suggests that reed is perhaps important to the survival of local populations.

Other marshes besides Kearny have important avian breeding populations, both in the Meadowlands and elsewhere in the state. Other Hackensack Meadowlands reed marshes include Kingsland impoundment(coot, Ruddy Duck, Kingsland Creek marshes(Yellow-crowned Night-Heron); Pied-billed Grebe, Com. Mooorhen among others; Berry's Creek(N. Harrier, Am. Bittern, Clapper Rail); Mill Creek(Least Bittern, Yellow-crowned Night-Heron, Least Bittern); Bellman's Creek; Moonachie Creek(Yellow-crowned Night-Heron). Note that most of these species feed and nest in the reed marshes.

Reed marshes elsewhere in the state of importance to resident birds include the Cape May Point State Park marshes and the marshes at the east end of the South Cape May Meadows(bitterns and rails); marshes associated with dredge spoil islands on the intra-coastal waterway(all NJ-nesting herons except Great Blue(9 spp.) and Glossy Ibis); marshes on the Pedicktown spoils when flooded(grebes, coot, Ruddy Duck, Least Bittern); and mixed marshes on the Delaware and Arthur Kill tributaries, too numerous to mention. Thus far, this discussion has focussed on breeding birds.

Breeding bird habitat is not the only value phragmites has for birds. Phrags hosted a summer dispersal roost of hundreds of egrets in Kearny(Kane, NJA Supplement,Winter 1978) and elsewhere in the Hackensack Meadowlands, Black-crowned Night-Heron winter roosts(as important as breeding sites) in Kingsland and Kearny. The same function is observable on Delaware bayshore marshes. Reed also provides cover and forage areas for migrant passerines(see Gustafson, Records of New Jersey Birds, Winter 1986-87); winter roosts for raptors(Bosakowski, Records of New Jersey Birds, Autumn 1983); and lots of other functions such as windbreaks for migrant and winter waterfowl, feeding "trunks" for chickadees and Downy Woodpeckers, cover for pheasants, all personal observations.

A final Audubon concern in the flap over phrag is the ready assumption that reed is bad because it is a monoculture. Now a case can be made for removing exotic(non-native) monocultures if they outcompete native species, result in a loss of resident animals or cause a hazard. But we don't usually eradicate our native monocultures; we manage them. There's a world of important difference. We thin or harvest our forests; we don't wipe them out with chemicals. We manage through mowing our grassland and shrub habitats according to various regimens for wildlife management purposes. Isn't it about time we managed reed, instead of wiping it out? When reed is ponded, when it is flowed with streams, when it is returned to a water source, when it includes mudflats, and when its water levels are managed, phrag is as productive of animal life as any wetland type. We do it with spartina(Open Marsh Water Management, also not sufficiently studied); we do it with cedar swamps; we do it with cranberry bogs; why not with phrag?

Other factors also compel us to re-examine our treatment of this resource. The Clean Water Act requires mitigation for wetlands violations such as dredging and filling without permits, and compensation for polluting waterways with chemicals. Phrag management could be required with the cooperation of the agencies involved: EPA, the Army Corps, and the US FIsh and Wildlife Service. Recent studies, one in the Connecticut River(Fell et al. Journal Expt'l Marine Biology & Ecology, 1998) and one in the Chesapeake(Meyer and Gill, Report to NOAA, 1998) show fish to be equal in biomass or abundance in phrag and spartina. That alone, if universally true, would be sufficient to give the agencies pause before thinking eradication. When coupled with other events such as development, ditching, rise in sea level, ability of phrag to uptake metals, drop in populations of freshwater wetland birds and percent of brackish marshes now in reed, these factors drive us to the conclusion that we need wise conservation of phrag marshes. Use it, don't lose it!

By way of postscript, it remains only to note that there are some towns now in New Jersey whose only open space is in phragmites. There are others fast approaching that point. Audubon's view is longterm, and that is one reason among others why we have complained about the Hackensack Meadowland's Special Area Management Plan. If these phragmites fields are plowed under and paved, there will be no open space, no habitat, no succession, no operation of natural processes. We know that historically the Hackensack Meadowlands and other glacial lakes went from black ash and black spruce to cedar swamps to marshes. What habitats will ensue in 2500, we do not know. But in the near term, we had better prepare.

Richard Kane, Vice President
Conservation and Stewardship

See also: Phragmites Use by Birds of New Jersey