Hubbry Logo
TamarixTamarixMain
Open search
Tamarix
Community hub
Tamarix
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tamarix
Tamarix
Tamarix
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
"Tamarisk" redirects here. For other uses, see Tamarisk (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with tamarind, a leguminous tree grown for its edible pods, or tamarack, an American larch tree.

Tamarix
Tamarix aphylla in its natural habitat in Revivim, Israel
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Clade: Tracheophytes
Clade: Angiosperms
Clade: Eudicots
Order: Caryophyllales
Family: Tamaricaceae
Genus: Tamarix
L.[1]
Species

See text

The genus Tamarix (tamarisk, salt cedar, taray) is composed of about 50–60 species of flowering plants in the family Tamaricaceae, native to drier areas of Eurasia and Africa.[2] The generic name originated in Latin and may refer to the Tamaris River in Hispania Tarraconensis (Spain).[3]

Description

[edit]

They are evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees growing to 1–18 m (3+1⁄2–59 ft) in height and forming dense thickets. The largest, Tamarix aphylla, is an evergreen tree that can grow to 18 m (59 ft) tall. They usually grow on saline soils,[4] tolerating up to 15,000 ppm soluble salt, and can also tolerate alkaline conditions.[5]

Tamarisks are characterized by slender branches and grey-green foliage. The bark of young branches is smooth and reddish brown. As the plants age, the bark becomes gray-brown, ridged and furrowed.[4]

The leaves are scale-like, almost like that of junipers,[6] 1–2 mm (1⁄20–1⁄10 in) long, and overlap each other along the stem. They are often encrusted with salt secretions.[4]

The pink to white flowers appear in dense masses on 5–10 cm (2.0–3.9 in) long spikes at branch tips from March to September,[4][7] though some species (e.g., T. aphylla) tend to flower in the summer until as late as November.[8]

Selected species

[edit]
Tamarix gallica in flower
A Tamarix aphylla specimen in its natural habitat in Algeria
Tamarix stricta in Ateybeh village, Boushehr, Iran

Formerly placed here

[edit]

Ecology

[edit]

Tamarix aphylla can spread both vegetatively, by submerged stems producing adventitious roots, and sexually, by seeds. Each flower can produce thousands of tiny (1 mm; 1/20" diameter) seeds that are contained in a small capsule usually adorned with a tuft of hair that aids in wind dispersal. Seeds can also be dispersed by water. Seedlings require extended periods of soil saturation for establishment.[10] Tamarisk trees are most often propagated by cuttings.[11]

These trees grow in disturbed and undisturbed streams, waterways, bottom lands, banks, and drainage washes of natural or artificial water bodies, moist rangelands and pastures.[citation needed]

Whether Tamarix species are fire-adapted or not is unclear, but in many cases a large proportion of the trees are able to resprout from the stump after fires, although not notably more so than other riverine species. They likely cannot resprout from root suckers. In some habitats where they are native, wildfire appears to favour the establishment of riverine trees such as Populus, to the detriment of Tamarix. Conversely, they do appear to be more flammable, with more dead wood produced and debris held aloft. In the southwestern US, most stands studied appear to be burning at faster intervals than they can fully mature and die of natural causes.[12]

Tamarix species are used as food plants by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Coleophora asthenella which feeds exclusively on T. africana.[13]

As an invasive species

[edit]

In some specific riparian habitats in the Southwestern United States and California, Tamarix ramosissima has naturalized and become a significant invasive plant species.[12] In other areas, the plants form dense monocultures that alter the natural environment and compete with native species already stressed by human activity.[14] Recent scientific investigations have generally concluded that the primary human-caused impact to desert riparian ecosystems within the Colorado River Basin is the alteration of the flood regime by dams; Tamarix ramosissima is relatively tolerant of this hydrologic alteration compared to flood-dependent native woody riparian species such as willow, cottonwood, and box elder.[15][16]

Competition with native plants

[edit]

Research on competition between tamarisk seedlings and co-occurring native trees has found that Tamarix seedlings are not competitive over a range of environments,[17][18][19] but stands of mature trees effectively prevent native species' establishment in the understory, due to low light, elevated salinity, and possibly changes to the soil biota.[20][21] Box elder (Acer negundo, a native riparian tree) seedlings survive and grow under higher-shade conditions than Tamarix seedlings, and mature Tamarix specimens die after 1–2 years of 98% shade, indicating a pathway for successional replacement of Tamarix by box elder.[22] Anthropogenic activities that preferentially favor tamarisk (such as changes to flooding regimens) are associated with infestation.[23][24][25] To date, Tamarix has taken over large sections of riparian ecosystems in the western United States that were once home to native cottonwoods and willows,[26][27][28][29] and are projected by some to spread well beyond the current range.[30]

In a 2013 study which examined if native plant growth was hindered by the microbiota associated with the presence of Tamarix, a relatively new invasive plant to the northern United States, Elymus lanceolatus and other native plants in fact grew better when a small soil sample from areas where Tamarix trees grew was mixed in with the potting soil, as opposed to samples without these plants. This was thought to indicate the presence of beneficial mycorrhizae. The presence of Tamarix plants has also been shown to boost soil fertility in a number of studies, and it also increases soil salinity. Two studies found that Tamarix plants are able to limit the recruitment of Salix and Populus tree species, in the latter case possibly due to interfering with the trees ability to form symbiotic relationships with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, in contrast to the grass and legume species studied in 2013.[31]

Because it is much more efficient at both obtaining water from drying soil and conserving water during drought, it can outcompete many native species, especially after the habitat is altered by controlling flood regimes and disturbance of water sources.[14] Because the trees are able to concentrate salts on the outside of their leaves, dense stands of the tree will form a layer of high salinity on the topsoil as the leaves are shed.[14] Although this layer is easily washed off during flooding events, in areas where the rivers are channelled and floods are controlled, this salty layer inhibits the germination of a number of native plants.[12] However, a study involving more than a thousand soil samples across gradients of both flood frequency and Tamarix density concluded that "flooding may be the most important factor for assessing floodplain salinity" and "soils under Tamarix canopies had lower surface soil salinity than open areas deprived of flooding suggesting that surface evaporation may contribute more to surface soil salinity than Tamarix".[32]

Investigation of effects of invasion

[edit]

Tamarix species are commonly believed to disrupt the structure and stability of North American native plant communities and degrade native wildlife habitat, by outcompeting and replacing native plant species, salinizing soils, monopolizing limited sources of moisture, and increasing the frequency, intensity, and effect of fires and floods [citation needed]. While individual plants may not consume larger quantities of water than native species,[33][34] large, dense stands of tamarisk do consume more water than equivalent stands of native cottonwoods.[35] An active and ongoing debate exists as to when the tamarisk can out-compete native plants, and if it is actively displacing native plants or it just taking advantage of disturbance by removal of natives by humans and changes in flood regimens.[36][37][38][39][40]

Controls

[edit]

Pest populations of tamarisk in the United States can be dealt with in several ways. The National Park Service has used the methods of physically removing the plants, spraying them with herbicides, and introducing northern tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda carinulata) in the national park system. Various attempts to control tamarisk have been implemented on federal lands including Dinosaur National Monument, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and White Sands Missile Range.[41][42] After years of study, the USDA Agricultural Research Service found that the introduced tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda elongata) eat only the tamarisk, and starve when no more is available, not eating any plants native to North America.[43]

Uses

[edit]
  • Tamarisk species, notably T. ramosissima[12] and T. tetrandra,[44] are used as ornamental shrubs, windbreaks, and shade trees.[45]
  • In the Southwest of the United states of America, tamarisk was introduced to help erosion control.[46]
  • On the steppes of Central Asia, the Saka may have used tamarisk wood (combined with horn) to produce tremendously powerful bows hundreds of years before the common era.[47]
  • The wood may be used for carpentry or firewood: it is a possible agroforestry species.[48][49]
  • At certain times of year, scale insects feeding upon the tender twigs of tamarisk plants excrete a sweet substance known as honeydew, which has been gathered for use as a food source and sweetener for thousands of years. The substance is also known locally as "manna", and some scholars have suggested that this substance is the biblical manna that fed the Israelites during their flight from Egypt, though others dispute this interpretation.[50]
  • Tamarisks play a role in anti-desertification programs in China.[51][failed verification][52]

In North America

[edit]

The tamarisk was introduced to the United States as an ornamental shrub, a windbreak, and a shade tree in the early 19th century. In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, tree-planting was used as a tool to fight soil erosion on the Great Plains, and different trees were planted by the millions in the Great Plains Shelterbelt, including salt cedars.[53][54]

Eight species are found in North America. They can be divided into two subgroups:[10]

Evergreen species

Tamarix aphylla (Athel tree), a large evergreen tree, does not sexually reproduce in the local climate and is not considered a seriously invasive species.[10] The Athel tree is commonly used for windbreaks on the edge of agricultural fields and as a shade tree in the deserts of the Southwestern United States.[55]

Deciduous species

The second subgroup contains the deciduous tamarisks, which are small, shrubby trees, commonly known as "saltcedars". These include T. pentandra, T. tetrandra, T. gallica, T. chinensis, T. ramosissima and T. parviflora.[10]

In culture

[edit]
Tamarisk tree (almyriki) in Milos island, Greece
  • A disputation poem dating to the 18th century BC, Tamarisk and Palm, features a personified tamarisk debating the date-palm over who is better.[56]
  • In Genesis 21:33, Abraham is recorded to have "planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba".[57] He had built a well there, earlier.[58] In 1 Samuel 22:6, Saul is sitting under a tamarisk tree on a hill at Gibeah when he learns that David has returned to Judah.[58]
  • In 1 Samuel 31:13, Saul's bones are buried under a tamarisk tree in Jabesh.[58]
  • In the Quran 34:16, the people of Saba were punished when "[Allah] converted their two garden (rows) into gardens producing bitter fruit and tamarisks...".[41]
  • Wedgwood made a "Tamarisk" china pattern.[59]
  • In the Iliad 10:465 Odysseus buries the spoils from a captured Trojan spy under a tamarisk tree, and marks their spot with reeds and tamarisk shoots. The spoils (a polecat cap, wolfskin cloak, long spear and bow) are dedicated to the goddess Athena.
  • Gerald Murnane's prose fiction Tamarisk Row refers to a racehorse, and to an estate, of that name

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tamarix

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Tamarix is a of approximately 54 of or and small in the Tamaricaceae, characterized by slender, feathery branches bearing scale-like leaves and racemes of small pink or white flowers. Native to arid and semi-arid regions spanning from the Mediterranean Basin and through to eastern , these thrive in saline and alkaline soils due to specialized salt-excreting glands on their leaves. Introduced to , , and other regions in the for ornamental purposes, , and windbreaks, several such as T. ramosissima and T. chinensis have become highly invasive, particularly along riparian zones in the . These invasives form dense monocultures that outcompete native vegetation through prolific seed production, , and rapid colonization of disturbed areas. Ecologically, they alter habitats by increasing , reducing via high rates—up to 757 liters of water per day for mature individuals—and providing inferior and cover for compared to native riparian . Management efforts, including mechanical removal, herbicides, and biological controls like the tamarisk , aim to mitigate these impacts, though secondary invasions and restoration challenges persist.

Taxonomy and Classification

Species Diversity and Distribution

The genus Tamarix in the family Tamaricaceae encompasses approximately 73 accepted species according to comprehensive botanical databases, though estimates have historically ranged from 50 to over 90 due to the genus's taxonomic complexity arising from subtle morphological differences and hybridization. These species are predominantly shrubs or small trees adapted to dry environments. Native ranges span arid and semi-arid zones from (including the Mediterranean Basin), across and the fringes, through the and , to , the , and eastern regions up to , western Himalaya, and . Representative species include , occurring from and eastward to and parts of the ; Tamarix gallica, confined to western and central Mediterranean areas extending into the ; , found from southeastern to and the western Himalaya; and , native to northern and eastern . Ongoing taxonomic efforts, informed by phylogenetic analyses, address persistent uncertainties; a 2023 study dated the crown age of Tamarix to 16.65 million years ago, highlighting divergence patterns that aid species delimitation. Regional revisions post-2020, such as a 2022 synopsis reducing Iberian taxa to seven species and 2023 nomenclatural clarifications for North African names, reflect refinements based on type specimens and molecular data amid the genus's history of fluctuating classifications.

Taxonomic History and Revisions

The genus Tamarix has undergone extensive taxonomic scrutiny since its formal description by in (1753), where initial species like T. gallica and T. africana were delimited primarily on morphological traits such as leaf scale shape and structure observed in European and North African specimens. Early classifications in the 18th and 19th centuries often conflated morphologically variable populations, leading to proliferation of synonyms and provisional species due to challenges in distinguishing subtle differences in size, filament number, and floral nectary morphology across diverse habitats from the Mediterranean to . These limitations stemmed from reliance on material, which captured rather than fixed traits, resulting in over 250 described taxa by the early 20th century, many of which were later synonymized. Twentieth-century revisions, such as those by El-Hadidi (1971) and Baum (1978), attempted to rationalize infrageneric groupings into sections based on morphology and characteristics, reducing accepted to around 50–60 while acknowledging hybridization potential in overlapping ranges. However, persistent identification ambiguities persisted, particularly among Asian introduced to new regions. Post-2000 molecular analyses revolutionized delimitation; for example, chloroplast and nuclear revealed that much of the North American invasion attributed to T. ramosissima actually comprises hybrids with T. chinensis, with F1 and backcross generations showing intermediate morphology and novel combinations not found in native parental populations. This hybridization, confirmed via (AFLP) markers, underscored how erodes boundaries, complicating traditional keys and necessitating integrated morphological-genetic approaches for accurate identification. Phylogenetic reconstructions using multi-locus DNA data have further refined the structure, identifying eight major clades corresponding loosely to geographic origins and floral traits, with the crown age estimated at approximately 16.65 million years ago via Bayesian divergence dating calibrated against records. A comprehensive 2018 study incorporating nuclear ribosomal ITS and plastid trnL-F sequences across 126 accessions challenged some sectional boundaries, revealing in groups like sect. Russowianae and supporting for Mediterranean clades, though without major generic reassignments. Recent efforts, including nomenclatural stabilizations for African taxa via type re-examinations, continue to address legacy confusions, emphasizing empirical genetic evidence over historical morphology to resolve ongoing debates in species counts, currently estimated at 54–64 depending on hybrid recognition criteria.

Morphology and Physiology

Physical Characteristics

Tamarix species are shrubs or small trees that typically grow to heights of 4 to 8 meters, featuring numerous slender, erect branches arising from the base that impart a feathery, broom-like appearance to the canopy. The bark on younger stems is smooth and reddish-brown, becoming rougher and grayish on mature trunks. The leaves are small, scale-like, and lanceolate, measuring 1.5 to 3.5 millimeters in length, arranged alternately and overlapping along the twigs in a manner resembling needles. These leaves bear specialized salt-excreting glands on their surfaces, often resulting in a of salt crystals. Flowers are minute, bisexual, and consist of five petals and sepals, colored pinkish-white, and are densely arranged in terminal racemes or spikes that measure 2 to 5 centimeters in length. The fruits are small, conical capsules that split open to release numerous tiny seeds, each approximately 1 millimeter in diameter and equipped with a tuft of fine hairs. While most species exhibit monoecious or hermaphroditic flowering, some, such as , are dioecious.

Growth Adaptations and Physiology

Tamarix species demonstrate exceptional tolerance to high through foliar salt glands that actively excrete excess such as sodium and , thereby maintaining cellular osmotic balance and preventing . These multicellular glands, composed of vacuolate cells, secrete salts whose ionic composition closely reflects that of the external medium, with excretion rates increasing under elevated to regulate internal concentrations. This mechanism enables survival in environments with electrical conductivities exceeding 20 dS/m, as observed in halophytic populations. Drought resistance is facilitated by extensive deep root systems capable of rapid vertical extension to access groundwater, coupled with high hydraulic conductivity and foliar water conductance. Phenotypic plasticity allows adjustments in stomatal behavior and photosynthetic efficiency, sustaining growth under water deficits where relative water content may decline but membrane stability is preserved via osmoprotectants. Tolerance to periodic flooding involves modulated root respiration and photosynthetic responses that minimize anaerobic stress, with plants recovering viability after submersion periods up to several weeks. Growth physiology features rapid accumulation, with annual height increments reaching 1-2 meters in favorable conditions, supported by efficient and ecotypic variation enhancing adaptability across gradients. This plasticity extends to morphological traits like and , enabling phenotypic shifts without genetic change. Reproductive physiology prioritizes prolific production, with individual yielding over 500,000 seeds annually, each minute and equipped with a plume for dispersal. occurs rapidly upon hydration, with time to 50% germination (TG50) ranging from 2-18 hours across spring and summer cohorts, achieving rates exceeding 80% under temperatures of 5-35°C and minimal . Clonal via sprouting provides redundancy, with adventitious buds forming post-disturbance to regenerate stands asexually, particularly in northern populations where clonality correlates with . This dual strategy ensures persistence amid fluctuating conditions.

Native Ecology

Natural Habitats

Tamarix species are indigenous to arid and semi-arid landscapes spanning Eurasia and Africa, where they predominantly occupy riparian zones along temporary and permanent watercourses, including wadis and seasonal streams. These habitats feature high salinity and fluctuating water availability, with Tamarix establishing in floodplains and along riverbanks that experience periodic inundation. In such environments, the genus forms components of open woodlands or shrublands, often interspersed with grasses and succulents adapted to similar edaphic stresses. Beyond fluvial systems, Tamarix thrives in salt marshes, saline depressions, and fringes of oases, particularly in regions with shallow tables and minimal . These settings include coastal saline habitats and inland salt flats, where the plants integrate into halophytic assemblages dominated by species such as Suaeda glauca and . Empirical surveys in native North African and Middle Eastern locales reveal Tamarix stabilizing dune edges and bank soils through extensive root systems, facilitating coexistence rather than exclusion of associated flora. In undisturbed native ecosystems, Tamarix exhibits non-dominant roles within diverse communities, contributing to heterogeneity without supplanting co-occurring natives, as documented in long-term observations of oasis-desert ecotones. This baseline integration underscores its adaptation to saline, drought-prone niches, where it supports faunal shelter and soil retention alongside other halophytes.

Interactions in Native Ranges

In native arid and semi-arid riparian systems across and , Tamarix species provide nectar-rich inflorescences that support communities, including native s, contributing to production in regions where floral resources are scarce. Studies of T. ramosissima in its Eurasian range indicate by at least six species, with no observed limitation under natural conditions, underscoring its role in sustaining insect-mediated within balanced ecosystems. These plants also furnish structural habitat for birds, offering nesting sites and perches in sparse vegetation along watercourses, where dense thickets mimic native riparian frameworks adapted to seasonal flooding and drought. In mixed native assemblages, Tamarix supports generalist avian species reliant on arid riparian corridors, enhancing local biodiversity without supplanting core habitat functions of co-occurring flora. Deep root systems of Tamarix species actively stabilize soils in native riparian zones, trapping alluvial sediments and mitigating along ephemeral and riverbanks prone to flash flooding. Observational data from Eurasian habitats highlight their pioneer role in binding unconsolidated substrates, preventing channel incision and promoting sediment accretion that benefits downstream persistence. Long-term studies in native ranges, such as post-fire dynamics in Himalayan T. dioica stands, reveal no substantive evidence of Tamarix displacing co-native species; instead, succession proceeds with replacement by other taxa, indicating competitive equilibrium rather than dominance-driven exclusion. This aligns with broader assessments lacking documentation of active outcompetition in undisturbed Eurasian assemblages, where Tamarix integrates as a resilient component amid fluctuating and .

Introduction and Global Spread

Historical Introductions

Tamarix species, native to and , were initially introduced to in the early primarily as ornamental shrubs, windbreaks, and shade trees by east coast nurserymen, with records indicating imports around 1823. By the mid-1800s, intentional plantings from expanded these uses to include along waterways, railroads, and riverbanks, reflecting efforts to stabilize disturbed landscapes during infrastructure development. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers further promoted such plantings in the late 1800s, deploying Tamarix along southwestern streams and channels specifically for bank stabilization. In Europe, where several Tamarix species are native to Mediterranean regions, human cultivation for ornamental purposes dates back centuries, with species like Tamarix gallica documented in gardens by the late 16th century and subsequently spread as flowering shrubs and windbreaks. This established horticultural tradition facilitated broader ornamental dissemination across the continent, often independent of native distributions. By the early 20th century, Tamarix introductions extended to southern continents; T. chinensis and T. ramosissima reached around the 1900s for erosion control on disturbed sites. Similarly, T. aphylla was imported to in the 1930s and 1940s, planted in arid zones like and as shade trees and windbreaks to combat . These transfers prioritized practical utility in harsh environments over ecological compatibility.

Patterns of Invasion

Tamarix species, notably T. ramosissima and hybrids, underwent rapid post-introduction expansion primarily along riparian corridors in the U.S. Southwest, with the most intense colonization occurring between 1935 and 1955. This spread was enabled by hydrological modifications from construction, which diminished peak events while maintaining perennial base flows conducive to seedling establishment and survival. By the late , infestations had extended from major drainages into secondary ephemeral channels, isolated springs, and marshes. Dispersal mechanisms include prolific production of wind-dispersed seeds, capable of traveling long distances, supplemented by flood events that facilitate downstream deposition of seedlings and rooting fragments. Human activities, such as development along transportation corridors like highways and canals, further vectored propagules into new sites. Overall coverage in western U.S. riparian habitats now exceeds 1 million acres (over 400,000 hectares). Satellite-based monitoring efforts since 2020 have documented ongoing presence in hydrologically altered zones but indicate density stabilization or contraction in some unmodified or climatically marginal areas, attributable to inherent limits like thresholds or .

Ecological Impacts

Alterations to Soil and Hydrology

Tamarix species, particularly invasive taxa like T. ramosissima and T. chinensis, excrete excess salts accumulated from via specialized glands on their leaves and stems, depositing sodium, chloride, and other ions onto the surface through foliar leaching and litterfall. This process contributes to elevated under plant canopies, with empirical measurements in invaded riparian zones of the showing surface electrical conductivity increasing by 2- to 10-fold compared to adjacent non-invaded areas, reaching levels up to 20-30 dS/m in dense stands. However, while correlations between Tamarix density and are consistent across studies, direct causation is debated, as many investigations document pre-existing high in invasion sites rather than Tamarix-induced elevation beyond baseline conditions. The accumulation of excreted salts can shift , often toward in arid environments, though localized effects near roots may acidify microsites by up to one pH unit due to and release from decomposing litter. cycling is altered indirectly through salinity's influence on microbial activity and rates; for instance, elevated sodium levels inhibit , reducing available while increasing retention in invaded soils. Studies in Chinese coastal wetlands quantify these changes, reporting 15-25% lower organic carbon turnover under Tamarix compared to reference sites, attributed to osmotic stress on biota rather than direct sequestration by the plant. Regarding hydrology, Tamarix's extensive phreatophytic systems, extending 5-10 meters deep, enable access to shallow , facilitating high rates that can deplete in semiarid riparian settings. Measured (ET) for mature stands averages 800-1200 mm annually, exceeding that of some native riparian species like cottonwood by 20-50% under similar conditions, potentially lowering water tables by 0.5-1 meter over invasion timelines of decades. Empirical sap flow and monitoring in the southwestern U.S., however, reveal mixed outcomes; in one semiarid river study from 2010-2014, Tamarix showed negligible correlation (R²=0.16) with fluctuations, suggesting site-specific factors like recharge and stand density modulate impacts more than inherent ET rates.

Effects on Native Flora and Fauna

Tamarix species, notably T. ramosissima and hybrids, exert competitive pressure on native riparian flora primarily through dense canopy shading, high evapotranspiration rates depleting soil moisture, and excretion of salt that alters edaphic conditions, collectively reducing native plant cover and diversity in invaded southwestern U.S. watersheds. Field studies in the Colorado River Basin document up to 80-90% declines in native understory species abundance where Tamarix dominates, as its phreatophytic root systems preempt groundwater resources otherwise available to species like Populus deltoides and Salix spp.. On fauna, Tamarix invasions displace some native riparian-dependent species by homogenizing structure and reducing structural diversity, yet observational surveys reveal it supports nesting and foraging for certain birds, including the endangered southwestern (Empidonax traillii extimus), which has been recorded breeding in dense Tamarix stands comprising over 50% of nest sites in some reaches. Avian community analyses along the indicate Tamarix can substitute for native vegetation in providing perches and cover for riparian obligates at invasion margins, though overall bird and guild diversity remain 20-40% lower than in native-dominated patches. and responses are less studied but show correlations with microhabitat loss, with herpetofauna abundance declining in Tamarix monocultures due to drier leaf litter and reduced insect prey. Post-removal monitoring in biocontrol and mechanical treatment sites, such as along the from 2005-2015, reveals variable native flora recovery, with understory native cover increasing by 30-50% in treated plots regardless of active removal, but often succeeded by secondary invasions of grasses like or forbs filling voids and hindering full restoration. Fauna responses mirror this variability; bird nesting persistence occurs in residual Tamarix, but herpetofauna diversity rebounds more consistently in actively restored sites with native plantings.

Empirical Debates on Net Harm

Recent empirical studies employing advanced techniques such as sap flow measurements and towers have challenged longstanding assertions that Tamarix species, particularly T. ramosissima, consume water at rates substantially exceeding native riparian vegetation. Transpiration rates on a leaf-area basis are comparable to those of native phreatophytes like Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), with stand-level typically ranging from 0.7 to 1.45 meters per year under similar arid conditions, influenced more by access and climate than species identity. Per-plant water use estimates, once extrapolated to implausibly high figures like 757 liters per day, have been revised downward to under 122 liters per day based on direct physiological , highlighting flaws in early scaling assumptions that ignored canopy density variations. Critiques of economic damage models underscore a lack of causal rigor in attributing reductions primarily to Tamarix invasion. Projections from the late and early , estimating annual losses in the billions of dollars for southwestern U.S. watersheds, often presupposed that Tamarix uniquely intercepts "usable" while overlooking equivalent consumptive use by native cottonwoods or willows, or even higher from pre-invasion bare soils in regulated river systems. Subsequent analyses, including remote-sensing calibrations of , indicate that Tamarix removal yields modest or negligible increases in downstream flows, as replacement vegetation or altered microclimates offset potential savings. These models' overstatements stem from correlative associations rather than controlled comparisons, prompting calls for baseline reconstructions accounting for anthropogenic alterations like construction that initially favored Tamarix proliferation in denuded habitats. Debates also question the unqualified "invasive" framing by noting contexts where Tamarix confers net stabilizing benefits in degraded landscapes. In saline or eroded riparian zones, its deep root systems and salt-excreting foliage enhance aggregation and facilitate through improved leaching, outperforming sparse native regrowth in anthropogenically disturbed areas like post-damming floodplains. Peer-reviewed assessments in arid restoration contexts affirm that Tamarix plantations on coastal saline lands improve physical properties over decades, creating microhabitats for species where alternatives fail, thus mitigating more effectively than unmanaged barren states. While displacement of certain native biota occurs, holistic metrics of function—such as and habitat provision for salt-tolerant fauna—suggest that net harm attributions may exaggerate displacement costs relative to Tamarix's role in arresting further degradation in human-modified environments.

Management and Control

Mechanical and Chemical Methods

Mechanical methods for controlling Tamarix species, such as hand-pulling, cutting, root plowing, and flooding, are most feasible for small or young infestations but often require integration with other approaches due to the plant's vigorous resprouting from and stumps. Hand-pulling or can effectively remove seedlings and small if roots are fully extracted, while cutting with tools like axes, machetes, or weed eaters reduces but stimulates regrowth unless followed by treatment. Root plowing, involving deep mechanical disruption of the , achieves approximately 90% control in field applications when performed thoroughly on established stands. Flooding young seedlings for at least one month submerges and kills them, as they lack tolerance for prolonged inundation, though mature withstand such conditions better. These techniques face scalability challenges in expansive southwestern U.S. riparian zones, where dense, mature stands demand like bulldozers or , increasing labor and logistical costs without guaranteeing complete eradication. Chemical control relies primarily on herbicides including , , and , applied via foliar spray, cut-stump, or basal bark methods to target Tamarix foliage, stumps, or stems. Cut-stump treatments, where stems are severed and immediately painted with a 50% solution of triclopyr or , yield high initial efficacy, with and triclopyr formulations achieving over 90% defoliation within three months post-application in grassland settings. Foliar applications of 1-2% or solutions, often via aerial methods in large areas, provide 80-90% initial mortality in southwestern trials, particularly effective on young or stressed stands during active growth periods. Combinations of and at reduced rates (e.g., 0.5-1% each) enhance kill rates compared to single agents in some scenarios. However, resprouting necessitates follow-up treatments, as initial success rates drop without addressing root reserves, and non-target effects on desirable vegetation limit broadcast applications in mixed habitats. In U.S. Southwest programs, such as those along the Pecos and Rivers, mechanical-chemical hybrids like mowing followed by application address volume in dense infestations but incur high costs—often exceeding $1,000 per for labor-intensive cut-stump work—limiting scalability across millions of s of invaded riparian corridors. Aerial delivery improves coverage for remote or expansive sites but requires precise timing to minimize drift and environmental residues, with showing persistent soil activity that aids residual control yet raises concerns for downstream aquatic systems. Recent field evaluations confirm 80-90% short-term for these methods on immature stands, underscoring their role in integrated strategies despite the need for repeated interventions to prevent reinvasion from seedbanks.

Biological Control Initiatives

Biological control initiatives targeting invasive Tamarix species, particularly saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), have centered on leaf-feeding beetles in the Diorhabda, selected for their host specificity and defoliation potential. Field releases commenced in 2001 with Diorhabda carinulata (northern tamarisk beetle), initially in sites along rivers in , , and , following extensive pre-release testing to confirm limited non-target impacts on native North American . Releases expanded rapidly, including D. elongata (Mediterranean tamarisk beetle) in in 2004 and further Diorhabda spp. in , , , , and by 2003–2005, establishing populations across western U.S. watersheds. These efforts, coordinated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, aimed to reduce Tamarix density through repeated larval and adult feeding, which strips foliage and stresses . Empirical assessments of host specificity have validated Diorhabda spp. as highly selective for Tamarix, with laboratory and field trials showing negligible feeding on over 50 non-target species, including native riparian flora. Recent remote sensing studies have quantified defoliation patterns, using multispectral imagery to map beetle-induced canopy loss and confirm impacts confined to Tamarix stands; for example, in the Grand Canyon region, D. carinulata herbivory correlated with mean leaf biomass reductions of 0.52 kg/m² across monitored areas. Such analyses, integrating satellite data like ASTER and WorldView-2, have tracked seasonal and decadal-scale defoliation, revealing synchronized outbreaks that align with Tamarix phenology rather than broader vegetation. Outcomes remain mixed, with significant Tamarix population declines and reduced observed in establishment zones like the , yet incomplete eradication due to plant resprouting and variable beetle persistence influenced by climate and photoperiod. In some sites, multi-year defoliation has led to partial mortality, but recovery occurs post-beetle , necessitating integrated approaches for sustained control.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Costs

A of 52 studies from 96 publications on Tamarix control efforts, published in 2024, found that biocontrol, , and cut-stump treatments generally reduced Tamarix abundance and elicited positive vegetation responses overall, though outcomes varied by method, site conditions, and monitoring duration, with some sites showing incomplete native recovery or sustained low overall plant cover. Long-term monitoring beyond five years often reveals persistent challenges, including Tamarix resprouting from crowns after mechanical treatments alone, necessitating integrated approaches for sustained suppression. Post-removal ecosystems frequently experience unintended shifts, such as increased secondary invasions by other non-native species like Agrostis stolonifera, Bromus tectorum, and Salsola tragus, which can manifest immediately after physical removal or delayed under biocontrol. A 16-year study at Sentenac Cienega in California documented lower total plant cover, elevated non-native invasive diversity, and a transition to upland-like communities following Tamarix eradication, attributing these to altered hydrology and competitive release without adequate restoration. Tamarix removal has also been linked to heightened erosion risks, as its dense root systems previously stabilized riparian soils, exacerbating sediment loss and channel incision in some arid watersheds. Management costs in the United States, encompassing mechanical, chemical, and biological methods for Tamarix, contribute to broader expenditures estimated at $46.5 billion from 1970 to 2018, with Tamarix-specific efforts in the Southwest incurring high logistical expenses for large-scale treatments like aerial application or beaver-mediated flooding. remains debated, as resilient regrowth and secondary ecological disruptions often require repeated interventions, yielding variable water savings or benefits relative to outlays; for instance, production models balancing treatment efficacy against revegetation needs project multi-year costs without guaranteed net gains in services. These inefficiencies underscore the need for site-specific evaluations to avoid over-optimistic projections of long-term success.

Human Utilization

Practical and Economic Uses

Tamarix species, particularly T. aphylla and T. ramosissima, are employed for in saline and arid environments due to their deep root systems and ability to colonize disturbed soils where few alternatives thrive. In the , tamarisk was historically planted along waterways to stabilize banks and reduce loss following floods, with roots extending up to 10 meters deep to bind substrates effectively. These attributes make it suitable for modern applications in arid landscaping, where it serves as a hardy option for soil retention on slopes and riverine edges, outperforming less tolerant natives in high-salinity conditions. As , multi-row Tamarix plantings reduce wind speeds by up to 50% and minimize blown-sand transport in fringes, as demonstrated in field studies from Iran's Niatak region where flux dropped significantly leeward of barriers. In northwest China's Basin, tamarisk windbreaks have protected marginal farmlands by decreasing total wind erosion and enhancing microclimates for crop establishment since the . Such deployments in highlight empirical advantages over some native shrubs, which establish more slowly on shifting sands. For dune stabilization, T. aphylla excels in and , forming dense stands that trap and prevent migration, with success rates exceeding 80% in mechanically prepared sites due to rapid growth rates of 1-2 meters annually. In Egyptian new lands and Saudi coastal zones, it has stabilized foredunes more reliably than certain indigenous species like under hyper-arid conditions, supporting coastal protection. Economically, Tamarix biomass yields firewood in the , where wood scarcity drives utilization; mature stands produce 10-15 tons per annually, burning with moderate heat output suitable for rural heating. Foliage supplements fodder in saline pastures, increasing by 20-30% in integrated systems, though high salt levels (up to 10% dry weight) necessitate supplementation to avoid . These roles contribute to cost savings in , with windbreak establishment costs offset by reduced damages estimated at $5-10 per meter in protected agroecosystems.

Medicinal and Phytochemical Applications

Tamarix species are rich in bioactive compounds, including (such as tamarixetin and derivatives), phenolic acids, and , which constitute major classes of secondary metabolites identified across the . A comprehensive 2024 review cataloged 655 naturally occurring compounds from Tamarix, with accounting for 18% and for a significant portion, highlighting their structural diversity and potential therapeutic relevance. These phytochemicals underpin antioxidant properties observed in extracts of species like and , where and water-acetone fractions demonstrated free radical scavenging in assays, comparable to synthetic standards like BHT. effects have been evidenced through inhibition of pro-inflammatory mediators in cellular models, attributed to and content modulating pathways like . Antimicrobial activity against pathogens such as and Candida species further supports applications in infection-related conditions, with flower extracts of showing inhibition zones up to 6.5 mm in disc diffusion tests. In traditional Eurasian practices, particularly in the , Tamarix species like Tamarix aphylla have been employed for via astringent bark applications and for fever reduction through decoctions. These uses align with empirical validations, as assays confirm the wound-healing potential through antibacterial efficacy and modulation, though human clinical trials remain limited. Pharmacological studies on Tamarix aphylla extracts also report and antirheumatic effects in models, correlating with traditional claims for and skin ailments. Despite these findings, variability in compound yields across species and extraction methods underscores the need for standardized profiling to substantiate therapeutic claims.

Cultural and Symbolic Role

Traditional Uses in Societies

In Mediterranean and Middle Eastern communities, species of the Tamarix genus have long served as a source of fuelwood and charcoal, particularly in arid environments where denser hardwoods are scarce; for instance, T. aphylla branches are harvested for these purposes in regions like Ethiopia and the Arabian Peninsula. The wood's durability also supported construction needs, including furniture, agricultural tools, and fence posts, contributing to everyday infrastructure in pastoral societies. Flexible branches of Tamarix plants were employed for roofs and crafting doors in ancient Arabian households, leveraging the species' resilience to harsh, sandy conditions for practical shelter adaptations. In tanning processes across Asian and Mediterranean areas, the bark—rich in —and floral functioned as agents for curing hides, a practice documented in traditional applications from to . Among arid pastoral economies in and the , Tamarix maintained empirical utility for windbreaks and livestock shade, with shoots occasionally browsed as during dry seasons, sustaining nomadic patterns over centuries. in these societies included preparing leaf infusions as a digestive , reflecting localized dietary incorporation for alleviating gastrointestinal discomfort in resource-limited settings.

Modern Perceptions and Controversies

In the United States, Tamarix species, particularly T. ramosissima and hybrids known as saltcedar, transitioned from prized ornamentals in the 19th and early 20th centuries to targets of aggressive eradication campaigns by the late 20th century, driven by claims of excessive water consumption, soil salinization, and displacement of native riparian vegetation in the Southwest. Federal and state policies, including those from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Reclamation, allocated millions for removal, with programs emphasizing mechanical, chemical, and biological methods to restore "pre-invasion" conditions. However, empirical assessments have questioned the magnitude of these impacts, finding limited evidence for substantial water salvage post-removal—often less than 10% of projected savings in controlled studies—and noting that human-induced factors like dams and altered hydrology are primary drivers of riparian degradation rather than Tamarix alone. Biocontrol efforts using the Diorhabda spp., released starting in 2001 after USDA approval, have sparked debates over versus risks, with field data showing 50-90% defoliation and reduction in targeted stands by 2010, yet variable long-term control due to incomplete canopy dieback and potential recolonization. Proponents highlight benefits like enhanced native in some sites, but critics cite non-target effects on atelocastyle hybrid Tamarix and disruptions to wildlife, including the endangered southwestern (Empidonax traillii extimus), which nests in Tamarix thickets; this led to a 2010 USDA halt on eradication in 13 states to avoid habitat loss. Risk assessments confirm the beetle's specificity to Tamarix, with negligible impacts on natives, supporting targeted over broad ecological harm. Criticism of "native-only" restoration paradigms has grown, with researchers arguing that rigid exclusion of non-natives ignores ecosystem resilience and Tamarix's functional roles, such as providing nesting for over 20 bird species and stabilizing eroding banks in disturbed systems—roles unproven to be inferior to hypothetical native assemblages. Skeptics, including those wary of regulatory overreach, contend that multi-billion-dollar control expenditures—exceeding $100 million federally by —yield marginal returns without addressing causal hydrological alterations, framing aggressive policies as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based. This view contrasts with mainstream environmental advocacy, which prioritizes native prioritization despite data showing incomplete native recovery post-removal without active intervention, underscoring tensions between precautionary dogma and .

References

  1. https://floranorthamerica.org/Tamarix
  2. https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/tamspp/all.html
  3. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/51305-Tamarix
  4. https://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=72
  5. https://www.riversedgewest.org/about/learn/impacts-tamarisk
  6. https://www.invasive.org/species/subject.cfm?sub=3078
  7. https://rivrlab.msi.ucsb.edu/invasive-species/tamarisk
  8. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/57369
  9. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:326334-2
  10. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:828051-1
  11. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:828110-1
  12. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:828206-1
  13. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:828082-1
  14. https://academic.oup.com/botlinnean/article/203/3/209/7229476
  15. https://rjb.revistas.csic.es/index.php/rjb/article/view/567
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068605/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/tamaricaceae
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095383617301104
  19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jse.12478
  20. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.132403299
  21. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/1015295
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030519781630223X
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10708552/
  24. https://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/subject.cfm?sub=3078
  25. https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=PDTAM01080
  26. https://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Tamarix%2Baphylla
  27. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.63.2.310
  28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.6625
  29. https://iforest.sisef.org/contents/?id=ifor1233-007
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168945224002280
  31. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1231928/full
  32. https://sextonlab.ucmerced.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sexton_EcologicalApplications_2002.pdf
  33. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1176&context=theses
  34. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/12472/11746
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277207422_Comparative_germination_of_Tamarix_ramosissima_spring_and_summer_seeds
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9346633/
  37. https://agr.mt.gov/_docs/weeds-docs/msu-extension-saltceder.pdf
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786524000717
  39. https://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Tamarix_ramosissima.html
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8986823/
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/8/1947
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40333-019-0055-0
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226099163_Long-term_changes_of_Tamarix-vegetation_in_the_oasis-desert_ecotone_and_its_driving_factors_Implication_for_dryland_management
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0254629915002306
  45. https://texasinvasives.org/plant_database/detail.php?symbol=TAGA
  46. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/fs20203061
  47. https://coloradoriverscience.org/Tamarisk_and_invasive_plants
  48. https://academic.oup.com/book/26918/chapter/196005559
  49. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/wre.12356
  50. https://weeds.org.au/profiles/athel-pine-tree/
  51. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0491a/report.pdf
  52. https://downloads.regulations.gov/FWS-R8-ES-2021-0065-0003/attachment_53.pdf
  53. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/paf/tamarix-ramosissima-plant-assessment-form/
  54. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ecological-Risk-Screening-Summary-Saltcedar.pdf
  55. https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/news/feature-articles/pinpointing-invasive-plants-next-move
  56. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2020/3061/fs20203061.pdf
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235484758_Quantifying_soil_salinity_in_areas_invaded_by_Tamarix_spp
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222563982_Soil_salinity_patterns_in_Tamarix_invasions_in_the_Bighorn_Basin_Wyoming_USA
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140196312001401
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302957983_Effects_of_Tamarisk_shrub_on_physicochemical_properties_of_soil_in_coastal_wetland_of_the_Bohai_Sea
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8434807/
  62. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/5015
  63. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3027/pdf/fs20063027.pdf
  64. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014WR016866
  65. http://wilcoxlab.tamu.edu/files/2013/01/McDonald_et_al-2015-Water_Resources_Research.pdf
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249432169_Competition_between_Native_Populus_deltoides_and_Invasive_Tamarix_ramosissima_and_the_Implications_for_Reestablishing_Flooding_Disturbance
  67. https://riversedgewest.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/Gonzalez%252526Sher_etal_2017a.pdf
  68. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/30123025/7.%2520Raynor_et_al-2017-Restoration_Ecology.pdf
  69. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70031877
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227657262_Tamarix_as_Habitat_for_Birds_Implications_for_Riparian_Restoration_in_the_Southwestern_United_States
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857417306018
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320716311399
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281930454_The_effects_of_riparian_restoration_following_saltcedar_Tamarix_spp_biocontrol_on_habitat_and_herpetofauna_along_a_desert_stream
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550742407500758
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254072869_Saltcedar_Water_Use_Realistic_and_Unrealistic_Expectations
  76. https://cwseducation.ucdavis.edu/class/106/risk-tamarisk-changing-approaches-management-invasive-species
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282823810_Evapotranspiration_by_Tamarisk_in_the_Colorado_River_Basin
  78. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00514.x
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706117322218
  80. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-44332/v1.pdf
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362799137_Long-Term_Effect_of_Tamarisk_Plantation_on_Soil_Physical_Properties_and_Soil_Salt_Distribution_in_Coastal_Saline_Land
  82. https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/118502/
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324278321_A_synoptic_review_of_Tamarix_biocontrol_in_North_America_tracking_success_in_the_midst_of_controversy
  84. https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/saltcedar
  85. https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/ipcw/report81/
  86. https://corpslakes.erdc.dren.mil/employees/invasive/pdfs/T_ramosissima.pdf
  87. https://www.invasive.org/weedcd/pdfs/wgw/saltcedar.pdf
  88. https://wric.ucdavis.edu/information/crop/natural%2520areas/wr_T/Tamarix.pdf
  89. http://texnat.tamu.edu/files/2010/09/Saltcedar-symposium-proceedings.pdf
  90. https://www.fs.usda.gov/media/17416
  91. https://www.riversedgewest.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/Field_Guide_for_Managing_Tam_SW.pdf
  92. https://www.texasinvasives.org/professionals/management_print.php?symbol=TARA
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256496679_Cut-Stump_Treatment_of_Saltcedar_Tamarix_ramosissima_on_the_Cimarron_National_Grasslands
  94. https://my.ucanr.edu/repository/a/?a=162088
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479705000241
  96. https://nrcs.usda.gov/plantmaterials/mtpmctn13110.pdf
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25827499/
  98. https://my.ucanr.edu/repository/a/?a=177292
  99. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2022/rmrs_2022_gaffke_a001.pdf
  100. https://www.riversedgewest.org/about/learn/what-tamarisk-beetle
  101. http://lubbock.tamu.edu/files/2015/06/Biological_Control_of_Saltcedar.pdf
  102. https://ag.colorado.gov/conservation/biocontrol/tamarisk
  103. https://www.riversedgewest.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/report%252020181031%2520PEST%2520RISK%2520ANALYSIS%2520OF%2520TAMARISK%2520LEAF%2520BEETLES%2520USDA%2520APHIS.pdf
  104. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70175160
  105. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/5/958
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425713002757
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192312000974
  108. https://neobiota.pensoft.net/article/111628/
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196324000922
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721063968
  111. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=etd
  112. https://extension.usu.edu/rangeplants/shrubs-and-trees/saltcedar
  113. https://www.nps.gov/sagu/learn/nature/tamarisk.htm
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32292166/
  115. https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/publication/jircas_journal/1/39
  116. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.1079/cabicompendium.52483
  117. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308582809_Benefits_of_Using_Athel_Tamarix_aphylla_L_as_Windbreaks_In_Egyptian_New_Lands
  118. https://apps.worldagroforestry.org/treedb/AFTPDFS/Tamarix_aphylla.PDF
  119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31542471/
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38750332/
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378874101003543
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691509002579
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332223014762
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669015303228
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8747234/
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35009121/
  127. https://pharmacia.pensoft.net/article/107237/
  128. https://prota.prota4u.org/protav8.asp?g=pe&p=Tamarix%2520aphylla
  129. https://www.arabnews.com/node/2619409/amp
  130. https://prota.prota4u.org/protav8.asp?g=pe&p=Tamarix%2Baphylla
  131. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/control-tamarix-western-united-states-implications-water-salvage-wildlife-use-and
  132. https://www.usbr.gov/research/projects/detail.cfm?id=9331
  133. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/salteafonsi.pdf
  134. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=usdaarsfacpub
  135. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamarisk-eradication-halted-to-protect-endangered-bird/
  136. https://dbg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/tamarisk_biocontrol_in_the_western_united.pdf
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049964405001167
  138. https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/attachments/6_22_10_Bird_tamarisk_habitat_study.pdf
  139. https://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/oldzephyr/aug-sept2004/defending.htm
  140. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321873359_Native_species_recovery_after_reduction_of_an_invasive_tree_by_biological_control_with_and_without_active_removal
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.