Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Carinna Robertson Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science Forest and Rangeland Management Tamarix ramosissima L.Family: Tamaricaceae Sourcesandybottom.com
Many names of:Tamarix ramosissima L. • Common names: • tamarisk • saltcedar • French tamarisk • small-flowered tamarisk • Scientific Names: • Tamarix pentandra • Tamarix chinensis • Tamarix gallica • Tamarix parviflora • Tamarix tetrandra
Plant Characteristics: • Growth Form: - Perennial/Dicots - Tree - < 12m - Shrub - 1.5-5m • Root Growth: - branching lateral root system - phreatophytes • Flowering: - light to dark pink flowers - bloom from April to October w/ one large seeding peak, but has continued seeding throughout the season - 4-5 sepals - 3-5 styles - stamens located on a fleshy lobed disk • Fruit - 3-5 valve capsule • Reproduction: -Resprout - Seeds - often produced in 1st year - small - light - tuff hair - Wind dispersed - Deposited via water or animals • Germination: - High youth viability - approx. 5 weeks - Once settling has occurred germination will occur within 24hrs. - However, germination can occur in water http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Image:Tamarisk-3.jpg
Plant Characteristic Cont.- • Seedling Establishment and Survival • Need saturated soil for first few weeks • High sunlight • No competing vegetation • Mortality - If soil dries for 1 day then seedling will not survive - High water flow velocities can cause uprooting up to several months after germination First Stages of Development: http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Image:Tamarisk-3.jpg
Ecological Characteristics: • Soils -Tolerant of high saline soils (6mgL⁻ to 15mgL⁻) - Typically sands • Allelopathy - Leaves release high salt concentrations - Which deposit below the Tamarix and create a hard crust • Competition: • Favorable Competitive Characteristics: - High plasticity and adaptability - High endurance - High drought tolerance - High temperature tolerant (xeric regions) - High salt tolerance - The combined effect of hard crust and being able to access a lower water table makes Tamarix a more sufficient competitor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarisk
Geographic Distribution: • -Native Origin: • -Southern Europe • -North Africa/South • Africa • -Middle East • -South Asia • -China • -Japan • Habitat Type: • - Moist Spots in • Desert Regions
Non-Native Invaded range: Introduction: - First introduced in early 1800’s as ornamentals, windbreaks, shade, erosion control and stream bank stabilization, and as source of wood -Naturalized by 1877 - By 1920’s problem was realized - Control efforts started by 1960’s Distribution: - Tamarix spp. is considered a noxious weed and hasinfested ~36 states - 1920’s ~ 4,000 ha - 2008~ 400,000-600,000 ha Favorable Habitats - Saline soils in xeric environments - Variety of stream and riverbanks http://plants.usda.gov
Ecological, Economical and Social Impacts: Ecological: Economical: Reduces Water Supplies Reduces Recreation Reduces Agricultural Uses Increases flooding Reduces wildlife diversity Reduces Transpiration Reduce Soil Quality Social: • Health and • Safety • How we • perceive and • appreciate the • environment • spend our time • Decreases Native Species and Habitat Diversity • Inhibits Native Phreatophytes • Forms Monoculture Communities • Reduces the Water Table the Longer the Invasion • Creates a Saline Environment
Benefits of Tamarisk to the Surrounding Habitat: • stabilizes stream and river banks • constitutes half the diet of beavers • provides habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) and the white-winged dove • aesthetically attractive • honey bees favor the flowers • woodrats (Neotoma spp.) and the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) forage adult Tamarix http://www.discovermoab.com
Control Methods and Strategies: Biological Control Method: -Leaf Beetle: Diorhabda elongata - Used to defoliate Tamarix spp. - Successful, but how will beetles effect other aspects? -restructure or eliminate tamarisk patches - vary regionally - effect native species http://www.fsu.edu James Tracy - USDA-ARS, Temple Texas, Bob Richard - USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Dan Bean-CDA Palisade Insectary, and Tim Carlson - Tamarisk Coalition. James Tracy - USDA-ARS, Temple Texas, Bob Richard - USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Dan Bean-CDA Palisade Insectary, and Tim Carlson - Tamarisk Coalition.
Control Methods and Strategies Cont’d: • Mechanical Methods: • Many unsuccessful because Tamarix spp. ability to resprout • Root plowing to 35-60 cm can be effective, but destroy other vegetation • Fire: Successful • Ideal time for best rates • Kills tamarisk during hot summers and drought • Need to re-apply for 3-4 years to fully kill • Often need to combine methods • A lot of implementation factors involved Grazing: -Cattle will sometimes eat young tamarisk shrubs -Goats may eat the regrowth of tamarisk -However, grazing is not a primary control method - Animals prefer higher valued forage http://www.fsu.edu
Control Methods and Strategies Cont’d: • Herbicide: • New Mexico • - Sprayed Arsenal (imazapyr )provided 90-99% control at a cost of $85/acre • - Mix of Arsenal + Round-up (glyphosphate) provided 90-99% control at a cost • of $60/acre • - Tebuthiuron is also approved for foliar treatments • California • - Garlon 4 (triclopyr) and Round-up (glyphosphate)
Conclusions: • Removal and restoration of Tamarix spp. infested areas should be of primary concern • Funds and support needs to be in place to proceed • Consideration should be taken to acknowledge the side-effects of each control method • Ultimately, I think biological control methods are more favorable, but the side-effect must be known and understood
Works Cited: • -Hughes Lee E. 1993. “The Devil’s Own”-Tamarisk. Rangelands 15(4):151-155. • -McDaniel Kirk C. and J.P. Taylor.2003.Saltcedar recovery after herbicide-burn mechanical clearing practices. J. Range Management 56:439-445. • -Daoyuan Zhang,Y. Linke and P. Borong. 2002. Biological and ecological characteristics of Tamarix L. and its effect on the ecological environment. Science in China (45). • -Whitcraft Christine R., D.M. Talley, J.A. Crooks, J. Boland, and J. Gaskin. 2007. Invasion of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) in a southern California salt marsh. Biol. Invasions 9:875-879. • -Cosse Allard A., R.J. Bartelt, B,W. Zilkowski, D.W. Bean, and E.R. Andress. 2006. Behaviorally Active Green Leaf Volaties for Monitoring the Leaf Beetle, Diorhabda elongata, a Biocontrol Agent of Saltcedar, Tamarix spp.. J. Chem. Ecol. 32:2695-2708. • -Tomaso Joseph M. 1998. Impact, Biology, and Ecology of Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the Southwestern United States. Weed Technology. 12:326-336. • Taylor John P. and K.C. McDaniel. 1998. Restoration of Saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)- Infested Floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology 12: 345-352. • Kimball Bruce A. and K.R. Perry. 2008. Manipulating Beaver (Castor canadensis) Feeding Responses to Invasive Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) • Duncan K.W. and K.C. McDaniel. 1998. Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Management with Imazapyr. Weed Technology 12: 337-344. • Sharfroth Patrick B. et al. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the Western United States: Implications for Water Salvage, Wildlife Use, and Riparian Restoration. Environ. Manage. 35: 231-246. • USDA, NRCS. 2008. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 20 November 2008). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. • In class notes, Bob Nowak.