| | |
 |
|
| 
| ||
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants |
|
|||
|
IntroductoryABBREVIATION : TAMRAM SYNONYMS : NO-ENTRY SCS PLANT CODE : TARA COMMON NAMES : saltcedar tamarisk TAXONOMY : The currently accepted scientific name of saltcedar is Tamarix ramosissima Ledeb. [2,14]. LIFE FORM : Tree, Shrub FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : No special status OTHER STATUS : NO-ENTRY COMPILED BY AND DATE : Julie L. Tesky, May 1992. LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : NO-ENTRY AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : Tesky, Julie L. 1992. Tamarix ramosissima. In: Remainder of Citation DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCEGENERAL DISTRIBUTION : Saltcedar is an introduced species native to Asia and southeastern Europe. Since its escape from cultivation in the 1870's, saltcedar has become extensively naturalized in the southwestern United States and Mexico [8,30,39,40]. It extends north to Massachusetts, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma [42]. Small but well-established stands of saltcedar occur in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota [40]. ECOSYSTEMS : FRES15 Oak - hickory FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood FRES21 Ponderosa pine FRES29 Sagebrush FRES30 Desert shrub FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub FRES36 Mountain grasslands FRES38 Plains grasslands FRES39 Prairie FRES40 Desert grasslands STATES : AZ CA CO ID IN KS MA MO MT NE NV NM OK OR SD TX UT WY MEXICO ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS : BICA BLCA CACH CHCU COLM DEVA GLCA GRCA GUMO JOTR LAME MEVE MOCA NABR ORPI PEFO TICA WHIS WUPA ZION BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS : 3 Southern Pacific Border 5 Columbia Plateau 6 Upper Basin and Range 7 Lower Basin and Range 9 Middle Rocky Mountains 10 Wyoming Basin 11 Southern Rocky Mountains 12 Colorado Plateau 14 Great Plains 15 Black Hills Uplift 16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS : NO-ENTRY SAF COVER TYPES : 63 Cottonwood 95 Black willow 235 Cottonwood - willow 242 Mesquite SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES : 107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 211 Creosotebush scrub 212 Blackbush 314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue 316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue 320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass 321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue 405 Black sagebrush 406 Low sagebrush 407 Stiff sagebrush 413 Gambel oak 414 Salt desert shrub 501 Saltbush-greasewood 506 Creosotebush-bursage 508 Creosotebush-tarbush 612 Sagebrush-grass HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES : Saltcedar commonly forms pure stands in disturbed riparian areas of the Southwest [1,35,45]. Published classifications listing saltcedar as a dominant are listed below: Ecological study of southwestern riparian habitats: techniques and data applicability [1] Classification of riparian habitat in the Southwest [35] Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico [45] Saltcedar is sometimes found with the following species: sandbar willow (Salix exigua), New Mexico forestiera (Forestiera neomexicana), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), boxelder (Acer negundo), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex canescens), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), salt grass (Distichlis stricta), and rabbitfootgrass (Polypogon monspeliensis) [6,7,45,46]. VALUE AND USEWOOD PRODUCTS VALUE : Saltcedar is being considered as a source of pulpwood [11]. IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE : Saltcedar communities are generally less valuable to wildlife than are native riparian plant communities [23,27,48]. When saltcedar was cleared from 49 acres (20 ha) along the lower Colorado River and replaced with native vegetation, avian density and diversity increased. Saltcedar communities have smaller numbers of insects during most seasons than native riparian communities [23]. Most avian frugivores and insectivores tend to avoid these communities [4]. Saltcedar provides nesting sites for white-winged dove, mourning dove, Bell's vireo, and black-throated sparrow [5,23,27,48]. Willow flycatcher populations have shown a significant increase over the last 6 years that is strongly correlated with its preference for saltcedar as nesting habitat [5]. Saltcedar is an important pollen source for European honeybees [22,26,27,41]. Black-tailed jackrabbit use saltcedar as a major food source [48]. Beaver will eat young saltcedar shoots [15]. PALATABILITY : Saltcedar is relatively unpalatable to most classes of livestock and wildlife. The degree of use shown by livestock and wildlife species for saltcedar in three western states is rated as follows [10]: CO UT WY Cattle Poor Poor Fair Sheep Poor Fair Fair Horses Poor Poor Poor Pronghorn ---- ---- Poor Elk ---- Poor Poor Mule deer ---- Fair Poor White-tailed deer ---- ---- Poor Small mammals ---- Fair ---- Small nongame birds ---- Fair ---- Upland game birds ---- Poor Poor Waterfowl ---- Poor Poor NUTRITIONAL VALUE : Saltcedar has been rated as poor in energy and protein value [10]. The seeds contain no digestible protein [15]. COVER VALUE : Saltcedar provides cover for cattle and wildlife species [10,22]. The degree to which saltcedar provides environmental protection during one or more seasons for wildlife species is rated as follows [10]: CO UT WY Elk ---- Good Poor Mule deer ---- Good Fair White-tailed deer ---- ---- Fair Small mammals ---- Good Good Small nongame birds Good Good Good Upland game birds Good Good Good Waterfowl ---- Good Fair VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES : Saltcedar has been planted for erosion control and windbreaks [32,38,40]. It is one of few species that can colonize and stablize extremely saline soils [4]. It is easily propagated from cuttings, which need only be placed in the ground. Where saltcedar is used for windbreaks, cuttings longer than 6 inches (15 cm) should be used to give the plants more of a start [32]. Because saltcedar is very prolific and hard to control it is not recommended for rehabilitation of disturbed sites unless carefully monitored [33]. OTHER USES AND VALUES : Because it has feathery foliage and forms dense clusters of flowers, saltcedar was originally introduced in the early 1800's for use as an ornamental [8,33,40]. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Saltcedar has become a serious weed species in the Southwest during the past half-century [8,31]. In some disturbed areas, native riparian vegetation has been completely replaced by pure stands of saltcedar [4,21]. Flooding damage: Dense stands of saltcedar have caused flood damage by impeding flow at high water stages [31]. Water loss: Saltcedar has a very high leaf area index and can dry up wetlands, lower water tables, and reduce water yield of riparian areas [15,28,40,41,52]. Use of groundwater is greatest where the height and density of saltcedar are at a maximum, the water table is shallow, and the climate is hot and dry. Studies have shown that the rate of water use by saltcedar under favorable conditions is more than 9 acre-feet/acre/year (11,101 m cubed/ 0.4 ha/year) in Arizona [40]. Along the Colorado River it has been estimated that up to 568,000 acre feet of water are lost per year to channel vegetation, with saltcedar being a major component [4]. Restructuring river channels: Saltcedar's dense roots and rhizomes spread out and slow river flow, which increases deposition. When this occurs a number of times at high water, sediments build along the riverbank. As the river recedes, saltcedar colonizes farther out into the floodplain, widing the riparian zone. This process can severly reduce stream flow [4] or rechannel it [52]. Control/herbicides: Saltcedar is difficult or impossible to kill by burning, drought, freezing, hypersalinity, prolonged submersion, or repeated cutting at ground level [34]. However, saltcedar can be controlled using a combination of methods [23,34]. Some herbicides used for saltcedar control are 2,4-D, dicamba, Tordon, Triclopyr ester, and Arsenal [23,25,34]. The herbicide Silvex has been used successfully to control saltcedar, but several restrictions have been placed on its use. The U.S. Department of Interior has totally prohibited its use on Interior lands [20]. For control using cut-stump/herbicide treatments the following steps should be followed: Cuts should be made within 2 inches (5 cm) of the ground surface; the herbicide should be applied to cut stumps within several minutes after cutting; the entire circumference of the cambium layer should be cut and treated; sprouting foliage should be cut and treated within a year after the initial treatment [34]. Biological control: In its native range, 115 insect species and four mites are known to attack saltcedar. A few may be candidates for biological control [15]. BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICSGENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS : Saltcedar is a long-lived (50-100 years), dense, deciduous shrub or tree 6 to 26 feet (2-8 m) tall [17,22,42]. Branches are smooth, slender, flexible, and break off easily [9,17,22,42]. The crown is narrow or rounded [30]. Branches are covered with minute, scalelike leaves, 0.02 to 0.03 inch (0.5-1.0 mm) long [17,22,42]. The bark of saltcedar is smooth, becoming furrowed and ridged with age [30]. The wood is soft and white [42]. Saltcedar has a deep taproot and extensive lateral rhizomes. Secondary root branching is profuse upon contact with water [4,15]. RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM : Phanerophyte REGENERATION PROCESSES : Sexual reproduction: Saltcedar flowers are primarily insect pollinated [15]. A mature saltcedar plant can produce 600,000 seeds annually [19,25,41,43]. Saltcedar generally flowers in its third year of growth or later, but may flower during the first year [43]. Seeds are very small with a tuft of hair at one end, which aids in dissemination by wind and water [19,23]. Seed viability and germination: Viability generally lasts for only a few weeks, especially at high temperatures [19]. The seeds will germinate on saturated soils or while afloat. Once wetted, fresh seeds usually germinate within 24 hours regardless of light conditions [19,23]. Seedlings: Seedlings grow slowly and require saturated soils throughout the first 2 to 4 weeks of growth. They will not survive more than 1 day without moist soil. Seedlings can survive submergence for several weeks but are uprooted by weak currents. Slowly receding water levels along river or reservoir banks create optimum seedbeds, but permanent survival requires several months without subsequent flooding [19,23]. Seedlings are very resistant to desiccation [15]. Vegetative reproduction: Saltcedar sprouts from the root crown and rhizomes [23,25,41,52]. Severed stems and shoots of saltcedar readily root in moist soil, but once dry, they rapidly lose this ability. Adventitious roots sprout from submerged or buried stems [23]. SITE CHARACTERISTICS : Saltcedar commonly occurs along floodplains, riverbanks, stream courses, salt flats, marshes, and irrigation ditches in arid regions of the Southwest. It often forms pure thickets that extend for miles [6,18,31,33,50]. It is one of the most widely distributed and troublesome weeds along water courses in park lands of the Southwest [26]. In the Great Plains, saltcedar is common along streams, in low undrained areas, and around lakeshores. It is especially common in the Arkansas and Cimarron river valleys and occasionally on dry hillsides [42]. Water requirements: Saltcedar is a facultative phreatophyte [40,43]. Its roots may penetrate soil 30 feet (9.1 m) or more, but the plant cannot survive if moisture is suddenly removed from the root zone [15]. It generally grows where the depth of the water table does not exceed 25 feet (7.6 m), and normally where it is less than 15 feet (4.6 m) [40]. Dense stands will grow only where the water table is between 5 and 20 feet (1.5-6 m) below the soil surface. If the water table is less than 5 feet (1.5 m) from the surface, the plants branch profusely and do not form a dense stand [23]. Once established, saltcedar can tolerate both drought and flooding [41]. By shedding its leaves and halting growth, it can withstand lengthy drought periods [23]. Additionally, saltcedar can tolerate inundation for up to 3 months [15]. Soils and dissolved solids: Saltcedar grows well on moist sandy, sandy loam, loamey, and clayey soil textures. It has a wide range of tolerance to saline and alkaline soil and water [10,40,42]. It has been found growing in Death Valley, California, where the groundwater contains as much as 5 percent dissolved solids [40]. It copes with high concentrations of dissolved solids by absorbing them through its roots and excreting excess salts through the glands in its stems and leaves. Eventually, these salts end up on the ground beneath the plant, forming a saline crust [41]. Shade-tolerance: Saltcedar is highly susceptible to shading. Shaded plants have altered leaf morphology and reduced reproduction [43]. Elevational range: Saltcedar occurs from below sea level to more than 7,000 feet (2,134 m) in elevation [43]. Elevational range for several western states is as follows [10]: Utah: 4,200 to 7,000 feet (1,280-2134 m) Colorado: 3,400 to 7,400 feet (1,036-2,256 m) Wyoming: 3,200 to 7,300 feet (975-2,225 m) SUCCESSIONAL STATUS : Saltcedar is a pioneer or colonizing species that establishes on freshly exposed alluvium, sand and gravel bars, and streambanks or other floodplains after disturbance [4,44,46]. Once established it often occurs in pure stands, persisting indefinitely in the absence of disturbance [4,6,16]. A decrease in river fluctuations can rapidly shift sites from habitats dominated by native vegetation to pure stands of saltcedar [21]. Saltcedar is a slow starter that does not compete well in established communities. Throughout most of its range, periodic burning, clearing, or flooding have caused saltcedar communities to remain in a youthful stage; therefore, little is known about its place in the natural succession of the floodplain community [11]. SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT : Saltcedar buds generally break dormancy in February or March [43]. Flowering begins in March and continues through September. A succession of small, capsule fruits ripen and split open during the period from April through October in Arizona [39]. Water-stressed individuals may stop flowering following the spring blooming period [43]. FIRE ECOLOGYFIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS : Saltcedar is a fire-adapted species. The high water and salt content of saltcedar foliage make it difficult to burn [25]. Saltcedar sprouts vigorously from the root crown and rhizomes after burning [41,52]. Saltcedar exhibits increased flowering and seed production after fire [15]. It also establishes on burned sites through off-site seed sources. In the absence of frequent flooding, saltcedar communities accumulate litter rapidly and can burn every 16 to 20 years. Fire prevents most saltcedar stands from either reaching maturity or persisting as mature communities. Native riparian vegetation is usually replaced by saltcedar after a fire [16,23]. POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY : Tree with adventitious-bud root crown/soboliferous species root sucker Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community) Secondary colonizer - on-site seed FIRE EFFECTSIMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT : Saltcedar generally survives fire, although very hot fires may prevent sprouting [15,23]. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT : Following a burn at Lees Ferry, Arizona, 90 percent of the mature saltcedar survived a hot crown fire, and sprouting shoots exceeded 6.5 feet (2 m) in height within 5 months [15]. However, only 36 percent of burned plants sprouted within 1 year following a July fire at Ouray Refuge, Utah. Following September and October fires, 91 to 96 percent of burned saltcedar plants sprouted [20]. PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE : Fire generally promotes sprouting and flowering of saltcedar [23,25]. Following an August fire, 69 percent of 144 burned plants were blooming heavily, while only 10.9 percent of 101 unburned plants on adjacent control areas were blooming [43]. If a favorable seedbed is created, wind- and water-dispersed seeds colonize burned sites. DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE : NO-ENTRY FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS : Prescibed burning alone is not an effective control method for saltcedar. However, burning followed by herbicide application is effective [4]. Late July burning in Utah, followed by spraying sprouts with 2,4-D 1 month after the fire, prevented 99 percent of the plants from sprouting the following year [20]. Fall burning followed by 2,4-D application was ineffective at controlling saltcedar [20]. References for species: Tamarix ramosissima1. Anderson, Bertin W.; Engel-Wilson, Ronald W.; Wells, Douglas; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Ecological study of Southwestern riparian habitats: techniques and data applicability. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 146-155. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5343] 2. Benson, Lyman; Darrow, Robert A. 1981. The trees and shrubs of the Southwestern deserts. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. [18066] 3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434] 4. Brotherson, Jack D.; Field, Dean. 1987. Tamarix: impacts of a successful weed. Rangelands. 9(3): 110-112. [10011] 5. Brown, Bryan T. 1989. Ecology and management of riparian breeding birds in tamarisk habitats along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 68-73. [11352] 6. Campbell, C. J.; Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1964. Comparison of phreatophyte communities on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Ecology. 45(3): 492-502. [7003] 7. Carman, John G.; Brotherson, Jack D. 1982. Comparison of sites infested and not infested with saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Weed Science. 30: 360-364. [6204] 8. Christensen, Earl M. 1962. The rate of naturalization of Tamarix in Utah. The American Midland Naturalist. 68(1): 51-57. [6202] 9. Decker, John P. 1961. Salt secretion by Tamarix pentandra Pall. Forest Science. 7(3): 214-217. [6250] 10. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806] 11. Everitt, Benjamin L. 1980. Ecology of saltcedar--a plea for research. Environmental Geology. 3: 77-84. [6200] 12. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905] 13. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998] 14. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603] 15. Hoddenbach, Gerry. 1989. Tamarix control. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 116-125. [11357] 16. Holland, James S. 1989. Status of saltceder (Tamarix ramosissima) within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 39-41. [11347] 17. Horton, J. S. 1957. Inflorescence development in Tamarix pentandra pallas (Tamaricaceae). The Southwestern Naturalist. 2(4): 135-139. [6363] 18. Horton, Jerome S.; Flood, John E. 1962. Taxonomic notes on Tamarix pentandra in Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist. 7(1): 23-28. [6391] 19. Horton, J. S.; Mounts, F. C.; Kraft, J. M. 1960. Seed germination and seedling establishment of phreatophyte species. Station Paper No. 48. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p. [4495] 20. Howard, S. W.; Dirar, A. E.; Evens, J. O.; Provenza, R. D. 1983. The use of herbicides and/or fire to control saltcedar (Tamarix). Proceedings: Western Society of Weed Science. 36: 65-72. [12075] 21. Irvine, James R; West, Neil E. 1979. Riparian tree species distribution and succession along the lower Escalante River, Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist. 24(2): 331-346. [5418] 22. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563] 23. Kerpez, Theodore A.; Smith, Norman S. 1987. Saltcedar control for wildlife habitat improvement in the southwestern United States. Resource Publication 169. Washington, DC: United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 p. [3039] 24. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384] 25. Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson R. Roy; Bennett, Peter S, technical coordinators. 1988. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 141 p. [11338] 26. Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1989. Introduction. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 1-7. [11339] 27. Lamb, S. H. 1971. Woody plants of New Mexico and their value to wildlife. Bull. 14. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 80 p. [9818] 28. Loope, Lloyd L.; Sanchez, Peter G.; Tarr, Peter W.; [and others]. 1988. Biological invasions of arid land nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 44: 95-118. [3263] 29. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496] 30. MacMahon, James A. 1985. The Audubon Society nature guides: Deserts. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 638 p. [4956] 31. Martin, Alex C.; Erickson, Ray C.; Steenis, John H. 1957. Improving duck marshes by weed control. Circular 19 (Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 60 p. [16324] 32. McClintock, Elizabeth. 1951. Studies in California ornamental plants: 3. The tamarisks. Journal of the California Horticultural Society. 12: 76-83. [17658] 33. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702] 34. Neill, William M. 1989. Volunteers play role in tamarisk control in desert riparian communities (California). Restoration and Management Notes. 7(1): 48. [8057] 35. Pase, Charles P.; Layser, Earle F. 1977. Classification of riparian habitat in the Southwest. In: Johnson, Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 5-9. Available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA 22151; PB-274 582. [5333] 36. Petersen, Joseph L.; Ueckert, Darrell N.; Wagner, Matthew W. 1990. Herbicides to aid establishment of fourwing saltbush. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 305-309. [12865] 37. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843] 38. Read, Ralph A. 1964. Tree windbreaks for the Central Great Plains. Agric. Handb. 250. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [2897] 39. Reynolds, H. G.; Alexander, Robert R. 1974. Tamarix pentandra Pall. five-stamen tamarisk. In: Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 450. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 794-795. [7761] 40. Robinson, T. W. 1965. Introduction, spread, and aerial extent of saltcedar (Tamarix) in the western states. Professional Paper 491-A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 11 p. [6225] 41. Rodman, John. 1990. Reflections on tamarisk bashing. In: Hughes, H. Glenn; Bonnicksen, Thomas M., eds. Restoration '89: the new management challenge: Proceedings, 1st annual meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration; 1989 January 16-20; Oakland, CA. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Arboretum, Society for Ecological Restoration: 59-68. [14688] 42. Stephens, H. A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas. 530 p. [3804] 43. Stevens, Lawrence E. 1989. The status of ecological research on tamarisk (Tamaricaceae: Tamarix ramosissima) in Arizona. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 99-105. [11356] 44. Stevens, Lawrence E. 1991. Riparian plant succession along the dam-regulated Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona. In: 35th annual meeting of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science: 1990-1991 annual reports: 1991 April 20; Flagstaff, AZ. In: Journal of the Arizona-NevadaAcademy of Science. Northern Arizona University; 26: 18-19. [17139] 45. Szaro, Robert C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants. 9(3-4): 70-138. [604] 46. Thomas, Larry; Kitchell, Katherine; Graham Tim. 1989. Summary of tamarisk control efforts in Canyonlands and Arches National Parks and. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 61-66. [11351] 47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104] 48. Waring, Gwendolyn L. 1990. Developing shoreline communities and potential for natural vegetation in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona-Utah. In: Boyce, Mark S.; Plumb, Glenn E., eds. National Park Service Research Center, 14th annual report. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, National Park Service Research Center: 73-75. [14918] 49. Watts, J.G.; Liesner, Dan R.; Lindsey, Donald L. [n.d.]. Salt cedar--a potential target for biological control. Bulletin 650. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 28 p. [4505] 50. Davila, Vidal, Jr. 1989. Tamarisk eradication efforts at Gaudalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. In: Kunzmann, Michael R.; Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter, technical coordinators. Tamarisk control in southwestern United States; 1987 September 2-3; Tucson, AZ. Special Report No. 9. Tucson, AZ: National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, School of Renewable Natural Resources: 28-32. [11344] 51. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 10 p. [20090] 52. Sala, Anna. 1995. [Personal communication]. April 13. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. [36191] [36191] Index
Related categories for Species: Tamarix ramosissima | Saltcedar |
 |
 | |
| |
| |
| Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities. | |
| |
|
About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy | Links Directory |
| 1Up Info All Rights reserved. Site best viewed in 800 x 600 resolution. |
