Plant Assessment Form
More Tamarix gallica resources
Tamarix gallica
Common Names: French tamarisk
Evaluated on: 2/8/03
List committee review date: 10/02/2003
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
Joe DiTomaso
UC Davis
Weed Science Program, Robbins Hall, Univ. California, Davis CA 95616
530-754-8715
DiTomaso@vegmail.ucdavis.edu
List committee members
Carla Bossard
John Randall
Peter Warner
Doug Johnson
John Hall
Dana Backer
Cindy Roye
Matt Brooks
General Comments
5/26/17 Note by Ramona Robison.
This PAF was originally prepared for three species: Tamarix ramosissima, Tamarix gallica, and Tamarix chinensis. It has now been split into three PAFs and the information copied into each. This decision was based on the overlapping ranges of the three species and the hybridization between T. chinensis and T. ramosissima. PAF could be updated to include recent information on biocontrol in California and elsewhere.
|
|
Overall Score ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | | |
A | A B | Any | High | No Alert |
A | C D | Any | Moderate | Alert |
B | A B | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
B | A B | C D | Moderate | Alert |
B | C D | Any | Limited | No Alert |
C | A | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
C | A | C D | Limited | No Alert |
C | B | A | Moderate | No Alert |
C | B | B D | Limited | No Alert |
C | C | Any | Limited | No Alert |
D | Any | Any | Not Listed | No Alert |
High
|
Alert Status ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | Alert |
A | A or B | C or D | Alert |
B | A or B | C or D | Alert |
No Alert
|
Documentation ?
The total documentation score is the average
of Documentation scores given in Table 2.
Reviewed Scientific Publication | 4 points |
Other Published Material | 3 points |
Observational | 2 points |
Anecdotal | 1 points |
Unknown or No Information | 0 points |
3.5 out of 5
|
|
|
Score |
Documentation |
|
1.1 |
?Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Severe |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Impact?
Section 1 Scoring Matrix |
Q 1.1 | Q 1.2 | Q 1.3 | Q 1.4 | Score |
A | A | Any | Any | A |
A | B | A,B | Any | A |
A | B | C,D,U | Any | B |
A | C,D,U | Any | Any | B |
B | A | A | Any | A |
B | A | B | A | A |
B | A | B,C | B-D,U | B |
B | A | C,D,U | A | A |
B | A | C,D,U | B-D,U | B |
B | B | A | A | A |
B | C,D,U | A | A | B |
B | B-D | A | B-D,U | B |
B | B-D | B-D,U | Any | B |
B | D,U | C,D,U | A-B | B |
B | D,U | C,D,U | C,D,U | C |
C-D,U | A | A | Any | A |
C | B | A | Any | B |
C | A,B | B-D,U | Any | B |
C | C,D,U | Any | Any | C |
D | A,B | B | Any | B |
D | A,B | C,D,U | Any | C |
D | C | Any | Any | C |
D | D,U | Any | Any | D |
U | A | B,C | Any | B |
U | B,C | A,B | Any | B |
U | B,C | C,D,U | Any | C |
U | U | Any | Any | U |
Four-part score
AAAD
Total Score
A
|
1.2 |
?Impact on plant community
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Severe |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
1.3 |
?Impact on higher trophic levels
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
A. Severe |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
1.4 |
?Impact on genetic integrity
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D. None |
|
|
2.1 |
?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment
Assess dependence on disturbance, both human and natural, for establishment of this species in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
A. Severe |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Invasiveness?
Section 2 Scoring Matrix |
Total points | Score |
17-21 | A |
11-16 | B |
5-10 | C |
0-4 | D |
More than two U's | U |
Total Points
17
Total Score
A
|
2.2 |
?Local rate of spread with no management
Assess rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
A. Increases rapidly |
Other Published Material |
2.3 |
?Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
B. Increasing less rapidly |
Other Published Material |
2.4 |
?Innate reproductive potential (see Worksheet A)
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
A. High |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
2.5 |
?Potential for human-caused dispersal
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
2.6 |
? Potential for natural long-distance dispersal
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Frequent |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
2.7 |
?Other regions invaded
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
C. Already invaded |
Other Published Material |
|
3.1 |
?Ecological amplitude/Range (see Worksheet C)
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Widespread |
Other Published Material |
Distribution?
Section 3 Scoring Matrix |
Q 3.1 | Q 3.2 | Score |
A | A, B | A |
A | C,D,U | B |
B | A | A |
B | B,C | B |
B | D | C |
C | A,B | B |
C | C,D | C |
D | A | B |
D | B,C | C |
D | D | D |
A,B | U | C |
C,D | U | D |
U | U | U |
Total Score
A
|
3.2 |
?Distribution/Peak frequency (see Worksheet C)
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
B. Moderate |
Other Published Material |
Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
Section 1: Impact |
Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes?
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
Very high water use and increased deposition of salts on soil surface. The longer the community has been invaded by saltcedar the more xeric in nature are the plant species which occupy the understory. Such deposits of salt-encrusted needles can inhibit other species germination. Saltcedar has been blamed for increasing flooding by forming a partial barrier to floodflow, which can cause floodwater to disperse and inundate areas that otherwise would not be flooded. With the invasion of saltcedar there has been an apparent increase in the frequency of fire in riparian ecosystems. Evapotranspiration rates of saltcedar are among the highest of any phreatophyte evaluated in southwestern North America, including native riparian trees. Saltcedar has been reported to contain 41,000 ppm dissolved solids in the guttation sap.
Sources of information:
|
Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition, structure, and interactions?
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
Saltcedar replaced two phreatophytic grass species, saltgrass (Distichlis stricta) and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) in a southwestern riparian zone. In some areas it makes up 70-80% of the vegetative cover, substantially displacing native vegetation and reducing the value of this critical wetlands complex for wildlife. In one river system, little regeneration of cottonwoods occurred in the past 30-35 years in a saltcedar-infested area. In the lower Colorado River, saltcedar replaced up to 90% of the riparian communities historically dominated by cottonwood-willow forests. Once established, periodic burning, clearing, and flooding have allowed saltcedar communities to remain young and to form nearly impenetrable thickets. Saltcedar can form stands considerably more dense than naturally occurring riparian vegetation.
Sources of information:
|
Question 1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels?
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
The majority of birds do not use saltcedar in high proportions compared with native plant communities. Frugivores and insectivores, abundant in native riparian vegetation, almost completely avoid saltcedar. Studies showed that several species had a higher affinity for the cottonwood-willow association, including common flicker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, porcupine and beaver. With the exception of desert woodrat and desert cottontail, no native mammal species are known to feed upon saltcedar. Then consumed by wildlife, only young growth is utilized. Although certain wildlife species may find saltcedar beneficial to their survival, the encroachment of saltcedar has most certainly altered the native habitat that was apparently of great benefit to wildlife. Although the southwestern willow flycatcher can nest in saltcedar, infestation have a negative impact on most other birds that would normally use the native vegetation.
Sources of information:
|
Question 1.4 Impact on genetic integrity?
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D
|
None. No native species within the family in North America. Unlikely to cross with any native species.
Sources of information:
|
Section 2: Invasiveness |
Question 2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment?
Assess this species' dependence on disturbance: both human and natural: for establishment in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Describe role of disturbance:
The development of water management programs that severely impact natural river flows has greatly contributed to spread of saltcedar. These alterations include reservoir and dam construction, river diversions, flow regulations, and irrigation projects. Historically, the flow of these rivers peaked in the late spring and early summer from snowmelt. These changes in channel geometry and streamflow created conditions unfavorable for the regeneration and survival of native riparian species. As a result, rapid colonization and expansion of saltcedar occurred throughout the western river systems. In addition to altering streamflow, clearing and plowing of floodplains and associated agricultural activity also aided saltcedar colonization during the 1800s. Saltcedar has also been reported to rapidly infest riparian areas exposed to heavy grazing. Once established, seed dispersal and plant fragments can become established in otherwise undisturbed areas. Establishment can occur on disturbed and undisturbed sites, but disturbance can increase the rate of establishment.
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.2 Local rate of spread with no management?
Assess this species' rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Describe rate of spread:
Doubling rate between 1920 and 1960 without management was about 6 years. Infestations went from 4,000 ha in 1920 to 362,000 ha in 1960. Recent estimates indicate infestations in the southwestern United States to exceed 600,000 ha .
Sources of information:
Brotherson, J.D. and D. Field. 1987. Tamarix: impacts of a successful weed. Rangelands 9:110-112; see DiTomaso, J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technology 12:236-336 for review and peer-reviewed reference citations.
|
Question 2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state?
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Describe trend:
Recent trend in increase of saltcedar is about at a rate of 3 to 4% per year. Much of the riparian area in the southwestern US has been occupied by saltcedar and the rate of increase there has slowed down. However, the rate of increase in other areas where it is just becoming established, particularly in more northern regions is probably greater.
Sources of information:
Brotherson, J.D. and D. Field. 1987. Tamarix: impacts of a successful weed. Rangelands 9:110-112; see DiTomaso, J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technology 12:236-336 for review and peer-reviewed reference citations.
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
Seedlings mature rapidly and produce small, white or pinkish flowers often by the end of the first year of growth. A single large tamarisk tree produces a half million seeds a year. Saltcedar had one major and one minor peak of seed production over a 5.5 month period. Seeds remain viable for several weeks and will germinate on saturated soils or while afloat. It can vegetatively resprout after fire, severe flood, or treatment with herbicides and it is able to accommodate wide variations in soil and mineral gradients in its environment. A good deal of evidence indicates that saltcedar can reproduce very effectively both asexually and sexually.
Sources of information:
Brotherson, J.D. and D. Field. 1987. Tamarix: impacts of a successful weed. Rangelands 9:110-112; Shrader, T.H. Selective management of phreatophytes for improved utilization of natural food-plain resources. Irrigation and Drainage pp. 16-44; see DiTomaso, J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technology 12:236-336 for review and peer-reviewed reference citations.
|
Question 2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal?
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
Planted as an ornamental, as a shade tree, and for erosion control. Not nearly as widely planted today as in the past. Can still be purchased via the internet. It was planted as an ornamental shrub or shade tree, or to create wind breaks, or to stabilize eroding stream banks. It did not escape cultivation until around the 1870s. In the early 1900s, farmers were using this plant for erosion control. It became clear by the 1920s that saltcedar was becoming a serious problem.
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal?
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
The tiny seeds have high viability and long hairs allowing for wind distribution, but may also be carried and deposited along sandbars and riverbanks by water. Stem and root fragments can also float downstream after fragmentation by mechanical damage or flooding and initiate new infestations. Seeds weight about 0.1 mg and can travel long distances in the wind. Flooding can move stem and root fragments very long distances.
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.7 Other regions invaded?
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify other regions:
Today, saltcedar infestations are common in most river systems over much of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. Saltcedar is continuing to spread northward into Montana and Canada and southward into northwestern Mexico. Populations have been reported from as high as 2,135 m in the southern Rocky Mountains, but typically occur below 500 m. Seems to be weedy in areas similar to those in the southwestern US.
Sources of information:
|
Section 3: Distribution |
Question 3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range?
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Other Published Material
|
Tamarisk was first brought to North America in the 1800s, from southern Europe or the eastern Mediterranean region. Although saltcedar is typically found around aquatic or riparian areas, it has also been observed in scrublands, although not in dense stands.
Sources of information:
Neill, W.M. 1985. Tamarisk. Fremontia 12:22-23; See both Lovich, J. Tamarix ramosissima. In, Invasive Plants of Californias Wildlands. Eds., C. Bossard, J. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky. UC Press, Berkeley and DiTomaso, J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technology 12:236-336 for review and other citations.
|
Question 3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency?
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Describe distribution:
Saltcedar forms dense stands in many riparian areas around the state, particularly in Southern California, where it infests most riparian communities. It is also in many smaller, isolated water sources that are scattered about the desert. Saltcedar is a facultative phreatophyte, which accounts for its primary infestations in riparian and aquatic regions, but occasional occurrence in drier regions.
Sources of information:
Neill, W.M. 1985. Tamarisk. Fremontia 12:22-23; See both Lovich, J. Tamarix ramosissima. In, Invasive Plants of Californias Wildlands. Eds., C. Bossard, J. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky. UC Press, Berkeley and DiTomaso, J.M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technology 12:236-336 for review and other citations. Many sources of personal observations.
|
Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less |
No |
Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter |
Yes |
Populations of this species produce seeds every year. |
Yes |
Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually |
Yes |
Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
No |
Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination |
Yes |
Has quickly spreading vegetative structures (rhizomes, roots, etc.) that may root at nodes |
Yes |
Fragments easily and fragments can become established elsewhere |
Yes |
Resprouts readily when cut, grazed, or burned |
Yes |
Total points: |
9
|
Total unknowns: |
0 |
Total score: |
A?
Scoring Criteria for Worksheet A
A. High reproductive potential (6 or more points).
B. Moderate reproductive potential (4-5 points).
C. Low reproductive potential (3 points or less and less than 3 Unknowns).
U. Unknown (3 or fewer points and 3 or more Unknowns).
|
Related traits:
Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here
(sensu Holland 1986)
Major Ecological Types |
Minor Ecological Types |
Code?
A means >50% of type occurrences are invaded;
B means 20% to 50%;
C means 5% to 20%;
D means present but <5%;
U means unknown (unable to estimate percentage of occurrences invaded)
|
Marine Systems | marine systems | |
Freshwater and Estuarine | lakes, ponds, reservoirs | C, 5% - 20% |
Aquatic Systems | rivers, streams, canals | B, 20% - 50% |
estuaries | |
Dunes | coastal | |
desert | |
interior | |
Scrub and Chaparral | coastal bluff scrub | |
coastal scrub | D, < 5% |
Sonoran desert scrub | |
Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland) | D, < 5% |
Great Basin scrub | |
chenopod scrub | |
montane dwarf scrub | |
Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub | C, 5% - 20% |
chaparral | |
Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | |
valley and foothill grassland | |
Great Basin grassland | |
vernal pool | D, < 5% |
meadow and seep | |
alkali playa | |
pebble plain | |
Bog and Marsh | bog and fen | |
marsh and swamp | B, 20% - 50% |
Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | B, 20% - 50% |
riparian woodland | B, 20% - 50% |
riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | |
Woodland | cismontane woodland | |
piñon and juniper woodland | |
Sonoran thorn woodland | |
Forest | broadleaved upland forest | |
North Coast coniferous forest | |
closed cone coniferous forest | |
lower montane coniferous forest | |
upper montane coniferous forest | |
subalpine coniferous forest | |
Alpine Habitats | alpine boulder and rock field | |
alpine dwarf scrub | |
|
Amplitude (breadth): |
A |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
B |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- CA Floristic Province
- Central West
- Great Valley
- Southwest
- Desert Province
- Mojave Desert
- Sonoran Desert