Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Ecology and Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco

Review paper

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) invasions in the US:

Mechanisms, impacts, and threats to biodiversity
James A. Estrada ∗ , S. Luke Flory
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, United States

article info abstract

Article history: Invasions of non-native species can suppress biodiversity and alter ecosystem functions,
Received 27 October 2014 but for many of the most widespread invasive species the mechanisms underlying their
Received in revised form 28 October 2014 invasive success and effects on native species are poorly understood. Here we evaluated
Accepted 28 October 2014
the peer-reviewed literature on causes and impacts of invasion by cogongrass (Imperata
Available online 30 October 2014
cylindrica), one of the most problematic invasive plant species in the southeast US. We
assess what is known about why cogongrass is particularly invasive and how it affects
Keywords:
Disturbance
native communities and ecosystems, review patterns in research methods employed,
Enemy release and provide a roadmap for future research on cogongrass. Although many studies have
Plant diversity focused on the basic biology and management of cogongrass, we found surprisingly few
Propagule pressure (30) studies that have directly tested mechanisms or impacts of cogongrass invasions.
Addition experiment The most commonly tested mechanisms, disturbance and allelopathy, were evaluated 4
Removal experiment and 12 times, respectively, and studies on invasion impacts were limited to five studies
total: native plant diversity (2 studies), nitrogen cycling (2), decomposition (1), and fine
fuel loads (1). Excluding laboratory studies on allelopathy, 75% (6/8) of impact studies
used observational methods, raising questions about cause and effect. Given the paucity
of studies on the ecology of cogongrass invasions, and the need to protect conservation
areas from invasions, we urge that research efforts focus on: (1) environmental correlates
of distribution and performance, (2) the role of propagule pressure in invasion success,
(3) enemy release and post-introduction evolution as mechanisms of invasion, and (4)
experimental tests of community and ecosystem impacts of invasions.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Materials and methods ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Results...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1. Current trends in cogongrass literature .................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2. Environmental correlates of distribution and abundance ....................................................................................................... 6
4.3. Propagule pressure and establishment ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4.4. Enemy release ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
4.5. Evolution ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
4.6. Biodiversity impacts of invasions .............................................................................................................................................. 7
5. Conclusions and research priorities....................................................................................................................................................... 8

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 352 294 1593 (Office), +1 419 889 8591 (Mob.).
E-mail address: estradaj@ufl.edu (J.A. Estrada).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.10.014
2351-9894/© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
3.0/).
2 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
References................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8

1. Introduction

Ecologists generally recognize that invasive plants can alter the diversity and composition of ecological communi-
ties (Powell et al., 2013; Pyšek et al., 2012), and invasions are often considered one of the primary drivers of ecosystem
change (Brooker, 2006; Ehrenfeld, 2010; Liao et al., 2008; Mack et al., 2000; Simberloff, 2011). However, for many invasive
plants the mechanisms underlying their invasive success (Levine et al., 2003) and effects on plant populations and commu-
nities (Hulme et al., 2013) are poorly understood. Furthermore, understanding the impacts of invasions can be hindered by
use of observational research methods that cannot disentangle cause and effect, raising questions about underlying drivers
of invasion. For example, invasive species that appear to negatively impact native communities may instead benefit from
anthropogenic disturbances that simultaneously inhibit native plants (Bauer, 2012; MacDougall and Turkington, 2005). Im-
proving knowledge of what drives invasions of the most widespread and damaging species, and how they affect communi-
ties, ecosystems, and biodiversity, will inform invasion risk of non-native species and improve natural areas management
and conservation strategies.
Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica, (L.) P. Beauv., hereafter cogongrass), is a non-native, perennial C4 grass found in the
southeastern US from Texas to Florida and as far north as Virginia (Fig. 1, USDA and NRCS, 2005). It is considered a
primary threat to biodiversity and ecosystem functions (Brewer, 2008; Daneshgar and Jose, 2009a; MacDonald, 2004) and
is predicted to spread north to Oklahoma and Tennessee, and east to coastal North Carolina, encroaching on numerous
conservation areas (Fig. 1, Bradley et al., 2010). It is native to Asia and was accidentally introduced to Alabama in 1912 via
packing materials and intentionally imported for forage in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida during the 1920s (Dozier
et al., 1998; Hubbard, 1944).
Cogongrass invasions can occur in diverse habitats from relatively undisturbed natural areas to pine plantations (Fig. 2(A))
and managed pastures (Dozier et al., 1998). There are a wide variety of possible explanations for the invasive success of
cogongrass. For example, the ability of the species to establish and persist in highly variable habitats has been attributed to
dense rhizome formation (Dozier et al., 1998; MacDonald, 2004), allelopathy (Cerdeira et al., 2012; Hagan et al., 2013b), high
rates of reproduction through both seeds and rhizomes (Holly and Ervin, 2007), exceptional phenotypic plasticity (Patterson,
1980), and tolerance of diverse growing conditions including shade, drought, and poor soil quality (Bryson et al., 2010;
Patterson, 1980). In addition, fire, cultivation, or other anthropogenic disturbances are also thought to promote cogongrass
invasions (Fig. 2(B), Holzmueller and Jose, 2012; Lippincott, 2000).
The putative impacts of cogongrass invasions include community-level effects on native plant diversity and
performance (Brewer, 2008) and ecosystem-level impacts on nutrient cycling (Daneshgar and Jose, 2009a), disturbance
regimes (Platt and Gottschalk, 2001), and decomposition (Holly et al., 2009). Because cogongrass is a federally listed noxious
weed (USDA and NRCS, 2005), and appears to spread rapidly and significantly impact communities (reviewed by MacDonald,
2004), establishing management strategies based on reliable data is a critical step toward conserving vulnerable habitats
and native biodiversity. In addition, with a cost of $400 per hectare for a single herbicide application (Van Loan et al.,
2002), an estimated 500 million invaded hectares worldwide (Dozier et al., 1998), and over 100,000 ha infested in Florida,
Alabama, and Mississippi (Schmitz and Brown, 1994), significant economic resources are spent each year on the control and
management of cogongrass. However, it is unclear why cogongrass appears to invade so frequently, which types of habitats
are most susceptible to colonization, and how invasions affect native plant communities and ecosystems. Previous reviews
have provided discussions of possible invasion mechanisms (Holzmueller and Jose, 2011) and biological characteristics and
management options for cogongrass (Dozier et al., 1998; MacDonald, 2004), but no study has systematically reviewed the
literature on the causes and effects of cogongrass invasions.
Here we compiled a comprehensive database of all publications from peer-reviewed journals that have addressed either
mechanisms or impacts of cogongrass invasions. We identified the hypothesis or type of effect examined, and the research
method (observational or experimental), spatial scale, and setting (natural area, common garden, greenhouse) of each study.
A formal meta-analysis (e.g. Kettenring and Adams, 2011; van Hengstum et al., 2014; Vila et al., 2011) or data mining
(e.g. Pyšek et al., 2012) was not possible due to the low number of studies identified. Finally, we outline the types of studies,
such as field surveys or removal or addition experiments that should be used to evaluate the mechanisms and impacts of
invasions, and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. Our overarching goals were to determine what is known about
the mechanisms underlying the invasive success of cogongrass and its impacts on native systems, establish if predictions
and management efforts are based on experimental evidence or observational studies, and provide a roadmap for future
research.

2. Materials and methods

To compile our database on the mechanisms and impacts of cogongrass invasions, we searched the peer-reviewed
literature using a combination of two predominant online search engines: ISI Web of Knowledge (http://wokinfo.com)
and Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com). We searched titles, abstracts, and keywords of articles using all possible
 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10 3

Fig. 1. Map displaying county level distribution of cogongrass in the US, projected distribution based on bioclimatic envelope modeling from Bradley et al.
(2010), conservation areas, and locations for US studies. Numbers correspond to Study #’s presented in Table 1. Current distribution data obtained from
EDDMapS (http://www.eddmaps.org).

A B

Fig. 2. An extensive cogongrass invasion flowering in Marion County, Florida (A) and a prescribed fire in an invaded area in Alabama (B). Photo credits: A.
S. Luke Flory, B. Nancy Loewenstein.

combinations of the following words: Imperata cylindrica, cogongrass, mechanisms, impacts, and invasion (e.g. ‘‘Imperata
cylindrica invasion’’, ‘‘cogongrass invasion mechanism’’, ‘‘cogongrass impacts’’, etc.). To identify additional studies that
addressed mechanisms or impacts of cogongrass invasions, we then searched citations within articles and ‘‘searched
forward’’ by looking for articles that had cited studies found in our original search. We conducted the searches in July and
August 2013 and examined all papers found with the search engines up to that time.
4 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

Table 1
Summary of studies investigating mechanisms (M) and impacts (I) of cogongrass invasion. For location, GH = greenhouse, GC = growth chamber, NA =
natural area, OM = outdoor microcosm, DA = disturbed area. Study # corresponds to the numbers in Fig. 1.
Study # M/I Hypothesis or impact Evidence for M/I Method Scale Location Reference

1 M Competition Yes exp 1.6 L, 1.0 m2

GH, GC, NA Wilcut et al. (1988)
2 M Competition Yes exp 2.8 L GH, GC, NA Willard and Shilling (1990)
3 M Disturbance Yes exp 0.8–78.5 m2 NA King and Grace (2000)
4 M Biodiversity–invasibility No obs 4.0 m2 NA Collins et al. (2007)
5 M Mechanical inhibition No obs 0.06 m2 NA Holly and Ervin (2006)
6 M Propagule-pressure No exp 0.8–1.1 m2 GH, GC Holly and Ervin (2007)
7 M Biodiversity–invasibility No exp 117 L OM Daneshgar and Jose (2009b)
8 M Disturbance No obs None reported DA Yager et al. (2009)
9 M Ideal weed Yes obs <1 L NA Bryson et al. (2010)
10 M Disturbance Yes obs 84,000 ha NA Holzmueller and Jose (2012)
11 I Fine fuel loads Yes obs 4.8 m2 NA Platt and Gottschalk (2001)
12 I Native plant diversity Yes obs 0.5 m2 NA Brewer (2008)
13 I Native plant diversity Yes obs 86.1 m2 NA Daneshgar et al. (2008)
14 I N cycling Yes exp 86.1 m2 NA Daneshgar and Jose (2009a)
15 I N & P cycling No obs 736 ha NA Hagan et al. (2013a)
16 I Decomposition Yes exp 9.0 m2 NA Holly et al. (2009)
17 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown Lab, GH Eussen and Wirjahardja (1973)
18 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown GH Eussen et al. (1976)
19 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown Lab Eussen and Soerjani (1975)
20 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown Lab Eussen (1977)
21 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown GH Eussen (1978)
22 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp Unknown Lab Inderjit and Dakshini (1991)
23 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp 0.05 m3 GH Tominaga and Watanabe (1997)
24 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp 0.02 m2 Lab Casini et al. (1998)
25 M&I Disturbance Yes obs 1225–5075 m2 NA Lippincott (2000)
26 M&I Superior competitor Yes obs 0.3 m2 NA Brewer and Cralle (2003)
27 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp 0.9 m2 GH Koger et al. (2004)
28 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp 0.6 m2 GH Koger and Bryson (2009)
29 M&I Allelopathy No exp None reported Lab Cerdeira et al. (2012)
30 M&I Allelopathy Yes exp 0.2 L GH Hagan et al. (2013b)

There have been many studies that have examined the specific biological characteristics (e.g., morphology), economic
impacts, management, and pasture/crop production effects of cogongrass, but we did not include those studies in our
database because we were specifically focused on what is known about ecological interactions of invasions in natural areas.
However, we do use such studies in our discussion of mechanisms and impacts below. Studies that we included in our
database were classified by whether they tested mechanisms or impacts of invasions, the specific hypothesis or impact
tested, whether there was evidence to support the mechanism or impact, and if the methods employed were experimental
or observational. We also determined the spatial scale and setting (e.g., greenhouse, natural area, laboratory) of each
study.

3. Results

A search for the term ‘‘Imperata cylindrica’’ in ISI Web of Knowledge (http://wokinfo.com) yielded 2303 results (search
conducted in July 2013) but only 30 publications focused specifically on invasion mechanisms or impacts and applied their
findings to understanding ecological interactions (Table 1). Many studies have investigated management approaches for
cogongrass invasions (1054), such as herbicide trials (477), as well as evaluation of basic biological characteristics such as
growth and reproduction, environmental tolerance, or distribution. Of the studies that we included in our database, 10
described potential mechanisms of invasion, six examined community or ecosystem impacts, and 14 investigated both
mechanisms and impacts (Table 1). Experimental settings included laboratories, greenhouses and growth chambers, and
natural and disturbed field sites with spatial scales ranging from 0.02 m2 to 84,000 ha (Table 1).
Overall, allelopathy and disturbance were the most often tested hypotheses for invasion mechanisms and impacts,
with 12 studies focused on allelopathy and four that investigated the effect of disturbance on establishment (Table 1). All
allelopathy studies were either greenhouse or laboratory experiments, while the disturbance studies were conducted in
unmanaged natural habitats. Of the 12 studies that investigated allelopathy, 11 used either pulverized tissues or leachate and
only one utilized soils from an established cogongrass population. Most allelopathy trials were conducted on crop species
(e.g., cucumber, tomato, rice), and all but one study (Cerdeira et al., 2012) reported negative effects on germination and/or
growth rates of test species.
Disturbance was the second most studied mechanism to explain cogongrass invasions. We found multiple studies sug-
gesting that cogongrass initially establishes in highly disturbed habitats, such as along trails, roadsides, and riparian ar-
eas (e.g. Willard et al., 1990; Yager et al., 2009). Fire has also been found to increase the abundance and dominance of
 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10 5

cogongrass within native communities. For example, Lippincott (2000) found higher fuel loads, greater fire intensities,
and increased tree mortality, and hypothesized that fire-invasion interactions could result in greater dominance of co-
gongrass. Holzmueller and Jose (2012) evaluated the history of sites following hurricanes and reported that invasions were
more widespread in areas that were burned more frequently or had been salvage logged. However, there is also evidence
that cogongrass can thrive in relatively undisturbed habitats (King and Grace, 2000). Overall, although disturbance has been
associated with the establishment and spread of cogongrass, there is a distinct lack of experimental evidence that quantifies
the role of disturbance in invasions.
Our search also identified eight studies that focused on how competition might influence the invasion success of
cogongrass and impacts on native biodiversity. In experimental trials, cogongrass was shown to out-compete and displace
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) seedlings, but was not able to colonize established bahiagrass stands (Willard and Shilling,
1990). Additionally, it has been demonstrated that cogongrass inhibits bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) growth, but was
less competitive than Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) (Wilcut et al., 1988). Competition studies utilized a combination of
greenhouse, growth chamber, and natural areas settings (Table 1). In observational studies in forest systems, cogongrass
invasion has been correlated with significant reductions in light levels, decreased native plant diversity, and reduced
productivity and growth of native pine seedlings (Brewer, 2008; Daneshgar et al., 2008). Fertilization studies also suggest
that cogongrass may outcompete native species for both phosphorous and nitrogen (Brewer and Cralle, 2003; Daneshgar
and Jose, 2009a). Finally, two studies (Collins et al., 2007; Daneshgar and Jose, 2009b) have specifically evaluated the ability
of diverse native plant communities to resist invasion by cogongrass (i.e., the Biodiversity–Invasibility Hypothesis Elton,
1958; Kennedy et al., 2002; Levine, 2000), with both studies finding that native plant diversity did not inhibit cogongrass
establishment success or the rate of spread. However, Daneshgar and Jose (2009b) found that Andropogon virginicus may
have higher resistance to cogongrass invasion than other species, suggesting that species composition could be an important
factor in limiting invasion success.

4. Discussion

4.1. Current trends in cogongrass literature

Although there has been an abundance of research on the biological characteristics and management of cogongrass
(reviewed by Dozier et al., 1998; MacDonald, 2004), we found surprisingly few studies that directly tested mechanisms
or impacts of cogongrass invasions. Disturbance and allelopathy were the most often tested mechanisms, and while
disturbance appears to enhance cogongrass spread, considerable uncertainty remains regarding the relative importance
of allelopathy due to limited evidence of below-ground chemical transfer and a lack of trials on native plant species.
Observational studies have suggested that cogongrass invasions impact native plant diversity and fine fuel loads (Brewer,
2008; Platt and Gottschalk, 2001), and experimental evidence indicates that cogongrass can alter nitrogen cycling and
decomposition rates (Daneshgar and Jose, 2009a; Hagan et al., 2013a; Holly et al., 2009). However, we found no studies on
how cogongrass invasions impact arthropod diversity, soil microbial communities, carbon cycling, or hydrology, which are
all possible effects of plant invasions (Powell et al., 2013; Pyšek et al., 2012; van Hengstum et al., 2014). Outside of laboratory
studies on allelopathy, most of the remaining studies we reviewed (10/17 overall, 4/6 impact studies) used observational
methods. Although observational studies can provide broad correlative patterns on characteristics of invaded areas, it is
often difficult to discern whether the observed changes in the native communities were actually due to the cogongrass
invasion. For example, anthropogenic disturbances such as fire or cultivation may both inhibit native species and promote
invasions (Hill et al., 2005; Lake and Leishman, 2004).
Multiple studies on the potential allelopathic effects of cogongrass have demonstrated negative impacts on the
performance of test species, but it is important to distinguish between allelopathy and phytotoxicity. Phytotoxicity refers to
chemicals from one plant affecting the growth and germination of another (e.g., through leaf litter), while allelopathy is the
effect of a chemical(s) that is released into the soil by one plant and absorbed by another (Romeo, 2000). This distinction is
critical because it is not known whether cogongrass litter negatively impacts native plant species performance, or whether
chemical doses that were applied in studies utilizing pulverized tissues or leachates were ecologically realistic. Given these
definitions, only four studies in our database met the criteria for allelopathy. Of these, only Hagan et al. (2013b) found
a reduction in performance of co-occurring natives (wiregrass, Aristida stricta, and slash pine, Pinus elliottii). Therefore,
although ‘‘allelopathy’’ is the most common invasion mechanism addressed in the cogongrass literature, additional studies
aimed at evaluating soil-mediated inhibition of native species under realistic natural conditions are needed to determine if
allelopathy is driving invasion success in ecologically relevant settings.
There is evidence that disturbance generally facilitates cogongrass invasion but it is less clear how various types of dis-
turbance (e.g., fire, flooding, road grading) may differentially affect establishment (Burke and Grime, 1996; Maron et al.,
2013) or whether disturbance and environmental factors (e.g., light, soil moisture) might interact to alter establishment
success (Davis and Pelsor, 2001; Parendes and Jones, 2000). Disturbed areas may also simply be the sites with the highest
introduction rates (i.e., propagule pressure Colautti et al., 2006; Levine, 2000; Von Holle and Simberloff, 2005), and it is un-
clear if sufficient propagule pressure can overwhelm environmental resistance (e.g., shade) in undisturbed or less-disturbed
habitats (e.g. Von Holle and Simberloff, 2005).
6 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

Overall, our synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature has shown that allelopathy and disturbance may be contributing
to invasion success but has also revealed multiple areas where additional research on cogongrass invasions is needed. In
the following sections we outline our recommendations for research on patterns of invasions, potential mechanisms, and
invasion impacts, including suggestions for effective experimental methodologies.

4.2. Environmental correlates of distribution and abundance

Despite the rapid expansion of cogongrass throughout the southeastern US and its ability to colonize a wide range of
habitats, we are not aware of any study that has comprehensively quantified the ecological requirements of cogongrass
within the invasive range. While studies have provided information on the basic environmental conditions associated with
cogongrass invasions, their limited scope does not permit us to quantify patterns of performance across variable habi-
tats. Bryson et al. (2010) showed that cogongrass invasions are able to persist in a wide variety of soil types in Mississippi,
and Brewer and Cralle (2003) found that phosphorus enriched sites in Mississippi were less susceptible to invasion, but it
is unclear if these findings can be extrapolated to invasions in other habitats or conditions. In a related study, Bradley et al.
(2010) used bioclimatic envelope modeling to identify susceptible geographic regions, but the large scale of the study plots
(36 km2 ) required the use of data from environmental monitoring stations rather than the direct measurement of envi-
ronmental parameters (e.g., light or soil moisture availability, soil characteristics) at individual invasion sites. Furthermore,
the use of second party abundance estimates to determine regional distributions of cogongrass makes it difficult to relate
cogongrass performance (e.g., biomass, density, height) to environmental variables. A comprehensive investigation into the
distribution and performance of invasions across a wide range of environmental conditions and habitats would help identify
abiotic or biotic factors that influence cogongrass abundance, inform future research, and aid in the development of mod-
els to predict invasions and identify vulnerable habitats (e.g. Cole and Weltzin, 2004). We recommend a landscape-level
survey of populations throughout the US invasive range with objectives to: (1) characterize invaded habitats in terms of
topography, native plant composition, land use history, management history, soil characteristics, and light and moisture
availability, and (2) quantify attributes of invasive populations with regard to invasion area, tiller height, density, above and
below ground biomass, and, if possible, reproduction.

4.3. Propagule pressure and establishment

Propagule pressure is thought to be a primary factor regulating the establishment of non-native species (Levine, 2000;
Von Holle and Simberloff, 2005) and may determine habitat susceptibility to invasion (Colautti et al., 2006). For cogongrass, a
single plant can produce as many as 3000 seeds (Dozier et al., 1998; MacDonald, 2004) and germination rates may be as high
as 98% (Schilling et al., 1997). There is also evidence that relatively small numbers of cogongrass seed (e.g., 10 seeds/12 cm
diameter pots) can result in establishment (Holly and Ervin, 2007). Cogongrass also produces prolific rhizomes and rhizome
fragments as small as 0.1 g may produce new plants (Ayeni and Duke, 1985). However, there has been only one study (Holly
and Ervin, 2007) that experimentally manipulated propagule pressure to examine invasion success, and they focused
exclusively on seed propagules. Therefore, while we have ample information on general reproductive biology of the
species, more information is needed on how environmental and habitat conditions and disturbance might interact with
propagule pressure to determine invasion success. For example, the amount of propagule pressure needed to establish
a viable population in natural settings may depend on light, soil moisture, or nutrient availability. Moreover, studies are
needed to investigate propagule pressure with rhizome fragments, which is a frequent means of unintentional introduction
(e.g., fill dirt or machinery) throughout the invaded range (Willard et al., 1990). Cogongrass must outcross to produce
viable seed, thus studies on propagule pressure with rhizomes are needed in areas such as Florida where few if any seeds
are produced (MacDonald, 2004). Although early studies suggested that the size of the rhizome fragment affected initial
emergence (Ayeni and Duke, 1985), the studies were conducted in greenhouses where ideal environmental conditions may
have greatly enhanced the success of smaller rhizome segments. Since larger rhizome fragments would contain more nodes
and carbon reserves to allocate toward shoot growth, it is plausible that larger propagules may have a greater likelihood
of successful establishment, particularly in low-resource environments. Therefore, both propagule size (number of seeds or
rhizomes introduced) and quality (i.e., size) could affect the establishment and spread of new populations (Lockwood et al.,
2009; Simberloff, 2009), and determining their role in invasions should be a research priority.
Multiple experimental designs could be used to test propagule pressure effects for cogongrass invasions. While the most
ecologically relevant means is through propagule addition studies, there are often ethical concerns with the introduction of
non-native material into established native plant communities. Pot or mesocosm studies, introductions into ‘‘quarantined’’
semi-natural areas, and the use of common gardens can effectively limit these concerns. Common garden experiments in
particular would allow for the controlled introduction of propagules into experimental communities, providing a more
realistic view of the interaction between invasion pressure and native plant species without risking invasions into natural
areas. However, to conduct such studies the appropriate state and federal permits must be obtained, protocols must be in
place to monitor and treat escaped individuals, and all experimental plants would need to be removed at the conclusion
of the study. Finally, to avoid introducing non-native species into novel areas, we recommend conducting experimental
introductions at sites with existing invasions.
 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10 7

4.4. Enemy release

One of the most commonly cited hypotheses to explain non-native plant invasions is the enemy release hypothesis (ERH)
(e.g. Colautti et al., 2004; Liu and Stiling, 2006). The ERH states that species introduced to a new range may experience a
decrease in top-down regulation by specialist herbivores and other natural enemies, resulting in an increase in distribution
and abundance (Colautti et al., 2004; Keane and Crawley, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2006). Early reports identified a variety of
insects and pathogens associated with cogongrass in the native range (Mangoendihardjo, 1980; Soerjani, 1970; Syed, 1970)
but the extent to which they control or limit population growth is not clear. Quantifying herbivory effects within native
populations has been further complicated by a lack of agreement on clear boundaries for the native range (Holzmueller and
Jose, 2011). In the US, multiple insects and fungi have been identified on invasive cogongrass populations (Van Loan et al.,
2002), however none have been reported to cause substantial damage (Holzmueller and Jose, 2011) and it is not known if
the limited damaged is due to generalist or specialist herbivores. To our knowledge, a comprehensive survey of herbivore
regulation in either the native or invasive range has not been conducted but would represent a critical first step in evaluating
the role of ERH in cogongrass invasion success.
Evaluating the relevance of complex ecological theories, including the ERH, is often problematic (Heger and Jeschke,
2014). The ERH is particularly difficult to examine due to complications associated with cross-continental experiments and
obtaining samples from the invasive species native range (Keane and Crawley, 2002). However, the specific assumptions
of the hypothesis can be more readily evaluated (Heger and Jeschke, 2014). For example, surveys of invasive cogongrass
populations could determine if specialist enemies are absent or limited in the US or if cogongrass receives less damage than
competing resident species (e.g. Halbritter et al., 2012; Lieurance and Cipollini, 2013). Furthermore, to inform biocontrol
development efforts, it is important to know if invasive cogongrass populations experience less herbivore or pathogen
damage than native range populations and if reduced damage significantly alters competitive interactions.

4.5. Evolution

Evolution of cogongrass populations may also promote invasions. For example, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica)
has hybridized with giant knotweed (Fallopia sachalinensis) (Bailey et al., 2009), greatly increasing its invasiveness, and
purple loosestrife (Lithrum salicaria) (Colautti and Barrett, 2013) and stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) (Novy et al., 2013)
have rapidly evolved across latitudinal gradients. The northward spread of cogongrass (USDA and NRCS, 2005) could be
similarly influenced by evolutionary adaptations associated with cold tolerance. Lucardi et al. (2014) evaluated interspecific
hybridization of cogongrass with Brazilian sandtail (Imperata brasiliensis) using amplified fragment length polymorphisms
(AFLP) but found no genetic differentiation or evidence of hybridization. Thus, they concluded it is unlikely that cogongrass
expansion in Florida is due to increased fitness through hybridization. However, analysis of neutral markers (e.g., AFLP) may
not reveal genetic changes important for invasion success. Thus, a more general understanding of the population genetic
structure of cogongrass, in particular determining whether introduced populations are genetically different than native
range populations, is needed. Common garden (Colautti and Barrett, 2013), and preferably cross-continental biogeographic
comparisons (Adams et al., 2009; Hierro et al., 2005), of invasive and native range populations could determine if there has
been selection for introduced cogongrass populations with increased competitive ability or greater environmental tolerance,
and invasion success.

4.6. Biodiversity impacts of invasions

Despite the widespread belief that cogongrass invasions threaten native plant diversity we found only two studies that
documented the impacts of cogongrass invasion on native systems, and both used observational methods. Daneshgar et al.
(2008) planted 1-year old pine seedlings alone, in naturally occurring stands of predominantly native species, and in areas
invaded by cogongrass, and found that seedlings were significantly less productive in invaded areas. However, it is unclear
if reductions in tree performance were due to the cogongrass invasion or poor environmental conditions in the invaded area
independent of the invasion. Brewer (2008) detailed post-invasion changes in species composition during an invasion over a
five-year period in longleaf savannas in Mississippi and concluded that native herbaceous plants were less abundant and had
lower diversity after invasion. By following an advancing invasion front over time, it was concluded that the invasion caused
declines in native species abundance, but again it is difficult to discern whether cogongrass is the driver of the changing
plant communities. Instead, it might be possible that shifting environmental parameters (e.g., disturbance or soil chemistry)
negatively impacted native species and promoted cogongrass spread. While both studies suggested that cogongrass was
suppressing native plant abundance and performance, experimental studies are needed to confirm that changes in native
communities can be attributed to the invasion rather than confounding factors. In addition, given the ability of cogongrass
to thrive in various habitats across the southeastern US, including conservation areas, additional studies in other habitats
and geographic locations are needed.
Coupling field surveys of invaded and uninvaded habitats with experimental removal or addition studies (e.g. Hagan et al.,
2013a) might provide the most powerful and reliable test of invasion impacts (Alvarez and Cushman, 2002). Field surveys
are informative because they quantify differences in invaded and uninvaded habitats and incorporate the environmental
heterogeneity of diverse sites across broad landscapes. However, experiments that include plots where invasions are
8 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

removed, plots with the invasion left intact, and nearby uninvaded plots with similar environmental conditions can be
used to infer both the impacts of the invasion and also to measure any legacy effects of the invasion (Marchante et al., 2009).
Ideally, field removal studies would be conducted across environmental gradients so as to gauge the legacy effects and
community and ecosystem responses among variable habitat conditions, and over relatively long time frames (Kettenring
and Adams, 2011). Separately, common garden and greenhouse introduction studies may be logistically more tractable and
provide more precise and direct measures of impacts (Flory and Clay, 2010; Simao et al., 2010), but lack some of the realism of
field studies. Clearly, a variety of research approaches must be employed in order to understand the full range of cogongrass
impacts on communities and ecosystem processes.

5. Conclusions and research priorities

While our search identified a large body of literature on the basic biology and management of cogongrass, we found
very little peer-reviewed information on the mechanisms driving invasions and their impacts on native communities and
ecosystems. Given the large amounts of time and funds spent on invasive plant management, and the relative paucity of
studies that have examined causes of invasions (Table 1, Fig. 1), we urge that future research efforts be focused on the
following priorities:
• A landscape-level survey of invasive populations throughout the introduced range to relate the density, distribution, and
performance of invasive populations to environmental characteristics.
• Experimental studies on the roles of propagule size and quality in invasion success and seed and rhizome dispersal into
various habitats.
• A survey of specialist enemies (both herbivores and pathogens) and damage on invasive and co-occurring native species,
and the relative amount of damage on populations in the native and introduced ranges.
• Studies to determine if introduced populations are genetically different than native range populations and whether
evolutionary changes in introduced populations have contributed to increased performance and invasion success.
• Addition and removal experiments to more explicitly quantify the impacts of invasions on native communities and
ecosystems, including alterations in plant, animal, and arthropod diversity, soil microbial communities, hydrology, fire
regimes, and nutrient and carbon cycling processes.
In summation, while it is widely recognized that cogongrass invasions are problematic, the dearth of information
on invasion mechanisms and impacts on native systems may be hampering management efforts and limiting policy
development. Identifying the mechanisms and impacts associated with cogongrass and other invasive plant species can
aid in predicting vulnerable habitats and rates of spread, provide more reliable data for effective management, and may
help to prevent future introductions of ecologically similar species.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Kerry Stricker for assistance with GIS and cartography, and to Deah Lieurance and members of the
Flory Lab for helpful discussions and feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript. Support was provided in part by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (project # 00110304).

References

Adams, J.M., Fang, W., Callaway, R.M., Cipollini, D., Newell, E., 2009. A cross-continental test of the enemy release hypothesis: leaf herbivory on Acer
platanoides (L.) is three times lower in North America than in its native Europe. Biol. Invasions 11, 1005–1016.
Alvarez, M.E., Cushman, J.H., 2002. Community-level consequences of a plant invasion: Effects on three habitats in coastal California. Ecol. Appl. 12,
1434–1444.
Ayeni, A.O., Duke, W.B., 1985. The influence of rhizome features on subsequent regenerative capacity in speargrass (Imperata cylindrica (L) Beauv).
Agriculture Ecosys. Environ. 13, 309–317.
Bailey, J.P., Bimova, K., Mandak, B., 2009. Asexual spread versus sexual reproduction and evolution in Japanese Knotweed sets the stage for the ‘‘Battle of
the Clones’’. Biol. Invasions 11, 1189–1203.
Bauer, J.T., 2012. Invasive species: ‘‘back-seat drivers’’ of ecosystem change? Biol. Invasions 14, 1295–1304.
Bradley, B.A., Wilcove, D.S., Oppenheimer, M., 2010. Climate change increases risk of plant invasion in the Eastern United States. Biol. Invasions 12,
1855–1872.
Brewer, S., 2008. Declines in plant species richness and endemic plant species in longleaf pine savannas invaded by Imperata cylindrica. Biol. Invasions 10,
1257–1264.
Brewer, J.S., Cralle, S.P., 2003. Phosphorus addition reduces invasion of a longleaf pine savanna (Southeastern USA) by a non-indigenous grass (Imperata
cylindrica). Plant Ecology 167, 237–245.
Brooker, R.W., 2006. Plant-plant interactions and environmental change. New Phytol. 171, 271–284.
Bryson, C.T., Krutz, L.J., Ervin, G.N., Reddy, K.N., Byrd Jr., J.D., 2010. Ecotype variability and edaphic characteristics for cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)
populations in Mississippi. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 3, 199–207.
Burke, M.J.W., Grime, J.P., 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77, 776–790.
Casini, P., Vecchio, V., Tamantini, I., 1998. Allelopathic interference of itchgrass and cogongrass: Germination and early development of rice. Tropical Agri.
75, 445–451.
Cerdeira, A.L., Cantrell, C.L., Dayan, F.E., Byrd, J.D., Duke, S.O., 2012. Tabanone, a new phytotoxic constituent of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Weed Sci.
60, 212–218.
Colautti, R.I., Barrett, S.C.H., 2013. Rapid adaptation to climate facilitates range expansion of an invasive plant. Science 342, 364–366.
Colautti, R.I., Grigorovich, I.A., MacIsaac, H.J., 2006. Propagule pressure: A null model for biological invasions. Biol. Invasions 8, 1023–1037.
 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10 9

Colautti, R.I., Ricciardi, A., Grigorovich, I.A., MacIsaac, H.J., 2004. Is invasion success explained by the enemy release hypothesis? Ecol. Lett. 7, 721–733.
Cole, P.G., Weltzin, J.F., 2004. Environmental correlates of the distribution and abundance of Microstegium vimineum, in east Tennessee. Southeastern Nat.
3, 545–562.
Collins, A.R., Jose, S., Daneshgar, P., Ramsey, C.L., 2007. Elton’s hypothesis revisited: an experimental test using cogongrass. Biol. Invasions 9, 433–443.
Daneshgar, P., Jose, S., 2009a. Imperata cylindrica, an alien invasive grass, maintains control over nitrogen availability in an establishing pine forest. Plant
Soil 320, 209–218.
Daneshgar, P., Jose, S., 2009b. Role of species identity in plant invasions: experimental test using Imperata cylindrica. Biol. Invasions 11, 1431–1440.
Daneshgar, P., Jose, S., Collins, A., Ramsey, C., 2008. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), an alien invasive grass, reduces survival and productivity of an
establishing pine forest. Forest Sci. 54, 579–587.
Davis, M.A., Pelsor, M., 2001. Experimental support for a resource-based mechanistic model of invasibility. Ecol. Lett. 4, 421–428.
Dozier, H., Gaffney, J.F., McDonald, S.K., Johnson, E.R.R.L., Shilling, D.G., 1998. Cogongrass in the United States: History, ecology, impacts, and management.
Weed Technol. 12, 737–743.
Ehrenfeld, J.G., 2010. Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. In: Futuyma, D.J., Shafer, H.B., Simberloff, D. (Eds.) Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics, Vol 41. pp. 59–80.
Elton, C., 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Eussen, J., 1977. Isolation of growth inhibiting substances from alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. var. major). In: Proceedings of the 6th Asian-
Pacific Weed Science Society Conference 1, pp. 138–151.
Eussen, J., 1978. Studies on the tropical weed Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. var. major. Report of Research Project WOTRO W86-34. Studies on the tropical
weed Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. var. major. Report of Research Project WOTRO W86-34.
Eussen, J.H.H., Slamet, S., Soeroto, D., 1976. Competition between alang-alang [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.] and some crop plants. SEAMEO Regional
Center for Tropical Biology, Biotropical Bulletin No. 10 Bogor, Indonesia.
Eussen, J.H.H., Soerjani, M., 1975. Problems and control of ‘alang-alang’ [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.] in Indonesia. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual
Conference of the Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society 5, pp. 58–64.
Eussen, J.H.H., Wirjahardja, S., 1973. Studies of an alang-alang, Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. vegetation. Biotropical Bull. 6.
Flory, S.L., Clay, K., 2010. Non-native grass invasion suppresses forest succession. Oecologia 164, 1029–1038.
Hagan, D.L., Jose, S., Bohn, K., Escobedo, F., 2013a. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) invasion and eradication: Implications for soil nutrient dynamics in a
longleaf pine sandhill ecosystem. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 6, 433–443.
Hagan, D.L., Jose, S., Lin, C.-H., 2013b. Allelopathic exudates of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica): Implications for the performance of native pine savanna
plant species in the southeastern US. J. Chem. Ecol. 39, 312–322.
Halbritter, A.H., Carroll, G.C., Güsewell, S., Roy, B.A., 2012. Testing assumptions of the enemy release hypothesis: Generalist versus specialist enemies of
the grass Brachypodium sylvaticum. Mycologia 104, 34–44.
Heger, T., Jeschke, J.M., 2014. The enemy release hypothesis as a hierarchy of hypotheses. Oikos 123, 741–750.
Hierro, J.L., Maron, J.L., Callaway, R.M., 2005. A biogeographical approach to plant invasions: the importance of studying exotics in their introduced and
native range. J. Ecol. 93, 5–15.
Hill, S.J., Tung, P.J., Leishman, M.R., 2005. Relationships between anthropogenic disturbance, soil properties and plant invasion in endangered Cumberland
Plain Woodland, Australia. Austral Ecol. 30, 775–788.
Holly, D.C., Ervin, G.N., 2007. Effects of intraspecific seedling density, soil type, and light availability upon growth and biomass allocation in cogongrass
(Imperata cylindrica). Weed Technol. 21, 812–819.
Holly, D.C., Ervin, G.N., Jackson, C.R., Diehl, S.V., Kirker, G.T., 2009. Effect of an invasive grass on ambient rates of decomposition and microbial community
structure: a search for causality. Biol. Invasions 11, 1855–1868.
Holzmueller, E.J., Jose, S., 2011. Invasion success of cogongrass, an alien C-4 perennial grass, in the southeastern United States: exploration of the ecological
basis. Biol. Invasions 13, 435–442.
Holzmueller, E.J., Jose, S., 2012. Response of the invasive grass Imperata cylindrica to disturbance in the southeastern forests, USA. Forests 3, 853–863.
Hubbard, C.E., 1944. Imperata Cylindrica, Taxonomy, Distribution, Economic Significance, and Control, vol. 7. Imperial Agricultural Bureaux Joint Publication,
pp. 1–63.
Hulme, P.E., Pysek, P., Jarosik, V., Pergl, J., Schaffner, U., Vila, M., 2013. Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 212–218.
Keane, R.M., Crawley, M.J., 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 164–170.
Inderjit,, Dakshini, K., 1991. Investigations on some aspects of chemical ecology of cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. J. Chem. Ecology 17, 343–352.
Kennedy, T.A., Naeem, S., Howe, K.M., Knops, J.M.H., Tilman, D., Reich, P., 2002. Biodiversity as a barrier to ecological invasion. Nature 417, 636–638.
Kettenring, K.M., Adams, C.R., 2011. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 48,
970–979.
Koger, C.H., Bryson, C.T., 2009. Effect of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) extracts on germination and seedling growth of selected grass and broadleaf
species. Weed Technol. 18, 236–242.
Koger, C.H., Bryson, C.T., Byrd Jr, J.D., 2004. Response of selected grass and broadleaf species to cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) residues. Weed Technol.
18, 353–357.
King, S.E., Grace, J.B., 2000. The effects of gap size and disturbance type on invasion of wet pine savanna by cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica (Poaceae). Am.
J. Bot. 87, 1279–1286.
Lake, J.C., Leishman, M.R., 2004. Invasion success of exotic in natural ecosystems: the role of disturbance, plant attributes and freedom from herbivores.
Biol. Cons. 117, 215–226.
Levine, J.M., 2000. Species diversity and biological invasions: Relating local process to community pattern. Science 288, 852–854.
Levine, J.M., Vila, M., D’Antonio, C.M., Dukes, J.S., Grigulis, K., Lavorel, S., 2003. Mechanisms underlying the impacts of exotic plant invasions. Proc. R. Soc.
B 270, 775–781.
Liao, C., Peng, R., Luo, Y., Zhou, X., Wu, X., Fang, C., Chen, J., Li, B., 2008. Altered ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles by plant invasion: a meta-analysis.
New Phytol. 177, 706–714.
Lieurance, D., Cipollini, D., 2013. Exotic Lonicera species both escape and resist specialist and generalist herbivores in the introduced range in North America.
Biol. Invasions 15, 1713–1724.
Lippincott, C.L., 2000. Effects of Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. (Cogongrass) invasion on fire regime in Florida sandhill (USA). Nat. Areas J. 20, 140–149.
Liu, H., Stiling, P., 2006. Testing the enemy release hypothesis: a review and meta-analysis. Biol. Invasions 8, 1535–1545.
Lockwood, J.L., Cassey, P., Blackburn, T.M., 2009. The more you introduce the more you get: the role of colonization pressure and propagule pressure in
invasion ecology. Diversity Distrib. 15, 904–910.
Lucardi, R., Wallace, L., Ervin, G., 2014. Evaluating hybridization as a potential facilitator of successful cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) invasion in Florida,
USA. Biol. Invasions 1–15.
MacDonald, G.E., 2004. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) - Biology, ecology, and management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 367–380.
MacDougall, A.S., Turkington, R., 2005. Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86, 42–55.
Mack, R.N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W.M., Evans, H., Clout, M., Bazzaz, F.A., 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control.
Ecol. Appl. 10, 689–710.
Mangoendihardjo, S., 1980. Some notes on the natural enemies of alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.) in Java. In: Proceedings of a BIOTROP
Workshop on Alang-alang, Bogor, 1976.
Marchante, E., Kjøller, A., Struwe, S., Freitas, H., 2009. Soil recovery after removal of the N2 -fixing invasive Acacia longifolia: consequences for ecosystem
restoration. Biol. Invasions 11, 813–823.
10 J.A. Estrada, S.L. Flory / Global Ecology and Conservation 3 (2015) 1–10

Maron, J.L., Waller, L.P., Hahn, M.A., Diaconu, A., Pal, R.W., Muller-Scharer, H., Klironomos, J.N., Callaway, R.M., 2013. Effects of soil fungi, disturbance and
propagule pressure on exotic plant recruitment and establishment at home and abroad. J. Ecol. 101, 924–932.
Mitchell, C.E., Agrawal, A.A., Bever, J.D., Gilbert, G.S., Hufbauer, R.A., Klironomos, J.N., Maron, J.L., Morris, W.F., Parker, I.M., Power, A.G., Seabloom, E.W.,
Torchin, M.E., Vazquez, D.P., 2006. Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 9, 726–740.
Novy, A., Flory, S.L., Hartman, J.M., 2013. Evidence for rapid evolution of phenology in an invasive grass. J. Evol. Biol. 26, 443–450.
Parendes, L.A., Jones, J.A., 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews experimental
forest. Oregon. Conserv. Biol. 14, 64–75.
Patterson, D.T., 1980. Shading effects on growth and partitioning of plant biomass in cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from shaded and exposed habitats.
Weed Sci. 28, 735–740.
Platt, W.J., Gottschalk, R.M., 2001. Effects of exotic grasses on potential fine fuel loads in the groundcover of south Florida slash pine savannas. Int. J.
Wildland Fire 10, 155–159.
Powell, K.I., Chase, J.M., Knight, T.M., 2013. Invasive plants have scale-dependent effects on diversity by altering species–area relationships. Science 339,
316–318.
Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Hulme, P.E., Pergl, J., Hejda, M., Schaffner, U., Vilà, M., 2012. A global assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species,
communities and ecosystems: the interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Global Change Biol. 18, 1725–1737.
Romeo, J.T., 2000. Raising the beam: Moving beyond phytotoxicity. J. Chem. Ecol. 26, 2011–2014.
Schilling, D.G., Bewick, T.A., Gaffney, J.F., McDonald, S.K., Chase, C.A., Johnson, E.R.R.L., 1997. Ecology, Physiology, and Management of Congrass (Imperata
cylindrica). Final Report. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Schmitz, D., Brown, T., 1994. An assessment of invasive non-indigenous species in Florida’s public lands. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Tallahassee, FL.
Simao, M.C.M., Flory, S.L., Rudgers, J.A., 2010. Experimental plant invasion reduces arthropod abundance and richness across multiple trophic levels. Oikos
119, 1553–1562.
Simberloff, D., 2009. The role of propagule pressure in biological invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 81–102.
Simberloff, D., 2011. How common are invasion-induced ecosystem impacts? Biol. Invasions 13, 1255–1268.
Soerjani, M., 1970. Alang-alang (Imperata cylindrica) (L.) Beauv): pattern of growth as related to its problem of control. Biotrop Bulletin, Bogor.
Syed, R.A., 1970. Insects Associated with Lalang (Imperata Cylindrica) and Possibilities of its Biological Control. Internal Report. CIBC Sabah Substation,
Tuaran, Malaysia.
Tominaga, T., Watanabe, O., 1997. Weed growth suppression by cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) leaves. Weed Research-Tokyo 42, 289–293.
USDA, NRCS, 2005. The PLANTS database. Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge,
LA 70874–4490 USA.
van Hengstum, T., Hooftman, D.A.P., Oostermeijer, J.G.B., van Tienderen, P.H., 2014. Impact of plant invasions on local arthropod communities: a meta-
analysis. J. Ecol. 102, 4–11.
Van Loan, A., Meeker, J., Minno, M., 2002. Cogon Grass. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication
FHTET-2002-04, pp. 353–364.
Vila, M., Espinar, J.L., Hejda, M., Hulme, P.E., Jarosik, V., Maron, J.L., Pergl, J., Schaffner, U., Sun, Y., Pysek, P., 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants:
A meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14, 702–708.
Von Holle, B., Simberloff, D., 2005. Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology 86, 3212–3218.
Wilcut, J.W., Dute, R.R., Truelove, B., Davis, D.E., 1988. Factors limiting the distribution of cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica, and torpedograss, Panicum repens.
Weed Science 36, 577–582.
Willard, T.R., Hall, D.W., Shilling, D.G., Lewis, J.A., Currey, W.L., 1990. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) distribution on Florida highway rights-of-way. Weed
Technol. 4, 658–660.
Willard, T.R., Shilling, D.G., 1990. The influence of growth stage and mowing on competition between Paspalum notatum and Imperata cylindrica. Trop.
Grasslands 24, 81–86.
Yager, L.Y., Jones, J., Miller, D.L., 2009. Military training and road effects on Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. (Cogongrass). Southeastern Nat. 8 695–708.