Plant Assessment Form
More Tamarix aphylla resources
Tamarix aphylla
Synonyms: T. articulata Vahl., T. orientalis Forssk., Thuja aphylla L.
Common Names: athel; athel pine; tamarisk; evergreen saltcedar
Evaluated on: 8/12/04
List committee review date: 11/03/2005
Re-evaluation date:
Evaluator(s)
T. Dudley, Assoc. Research Prof.
Univ. of Nevada
Dept. of Natural Resource & Environmental Science, MS 186; 1000 Valley Rd.; University of Nevada Reno, NV, 89512-0013
775-784-1716
tdudley@cabnr.unr.edu
List committee members
Joe DiTomaso
John Randall
Carla Bossard
General Comments
There is a basic problem with assessing individual species within the Tamarix complex - there exist many species and hybrid forms of these that are invasive across the west, and in fact hybrids are more common than any true species. Thus, this assessment may miss an important aspect of the situation in the field, esp. if hybrids constitute greater threats than the indentified species. In addition, the impacts of T. aphylla are minor in California and Arizona so far, so responses rely in large part on a real problem situation with this species in other continents so impacts would be listed as more severe than we are likely to experience here (but potential may exist).
3/21/2025 J. Burger
Removed association with "Aquatic" and "Freshwater and Estuarine" systems to stop this species from being considered as "aquatic" in the inventory filter.
|
|
Overall Score ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | | |
| A | A B | Any | High | No Alert |
| A | C D | Any | Moderate | Alert |
| B | A B | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| B | A B | C D | Moderate | Alert |
| B | C D | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| C | A | A B | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | A | C D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | B | A | Moderate | No Alert |
| C | B | B D | Limited | No Alert |
| C | C | Any | Limited | No Alert |
| D | Any | Any | Not Listed | No Alert |
Limited
|
Alert Status ?
Plant scoring matrix
Based on letter scores from Sections 1 through 3 below
| Impact | Invasiveness | Distribution | Alert |
| A | A or B | C or D | Alert |
| B | A or B | C or D | Alert |
No Alert
|
Documentation ?
The total documentation score is the average
of Documentation scores given in Table 2.
| Reviewed Scientific Publication | 4 points |
| Other Published Material | 3 points |
| Observational | 2 points |
| Anecdotal | 1 points |
| Unknown or No Information | 0 points |
3.5 out of 5 |
|
|
Score |
Documentation |
|
| 1.1 |
?Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
C. Minor |
Other Published Material |
Impact?
| Section 1 Scoring Matrix |
|---|
| Q 1.1 | Q 1.2 | Q 1.3 | Q 1.4 | Score |
| A | A | Any | Any | A |
| A | B | A,B | Any | A |
| A | B | C,D,U | Any | B |
| A | C,D,U | Any | Any | B |
| B | A | A | Any | A |
| B | A | B | A | A |
| B | A | B,C | B-D,U | B |
| B | A | C,D,U | A | A |
| B | A | C,D,U | B-D,U | B |
| B | B | A | A | A |
| B | C,D,U | A | A | B |
| B | B-D | A | B-D,U | B |
| B | B-D | B-D,U | Any | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | A-B | B |
| B | D,U | C,D,U | C,D,U | C |
| C-D,U | A | A | Any | A |
| C | B | A | Any | B |
| C | A,B | B-D,U | Any | B |
| C | C,D,U | Any | Any | C |
| D | A,B | B | Any | B |
| D | A,B | C,D,U | Any | C |
| D | C | Any | Any | C |
| D | D,U | Any | Any | D |
| U | A | B,C | Any | B |
| U | B,C | A,B | Any | B |
| U | B,C | C,D,U | Any | C |
| U | U | Any | Any | U |
Four-part score
CCBD
Total Score
C
|
| 1.2 |
?Impact on plant community
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
C. Minor |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 1.3 |
?Impact on higher trophic levels
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 1.4 |
?Impact on genetic integrity
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D. None |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
|
| 2.1 |
?Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance in establishment
Assess dependence on disturbance, both human and natural, for establishment of this species in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Invasiveness?
| Section 2 Scoring Matrix |
| Total points | Score |
| 17-21 | A |
| 11-16 | B |
| 5-10 | C |
| 0-4 | D |
| More than two U's | U |
Total Points
11
Total Score
B
|
| 2.2 |
?Local rate of spread with no management
Assess rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
C. Stable |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 2.3 |
?Recent trend in total area infested within state
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
D. Declining |
Observational |
| 2.4 |
?Innate reproductive potential
(see Worksheet A)
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
B. Moderate |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
| 2.5 |
?Potential for human-caused dispersal
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Moderate |
Other Published Material |
| 2.6 |
? Potential for natural long-distance dispersal
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Occasional |
Other Published Material |
| 2.7 |
?Other regions invaded
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
|
| 3.1 |
?Ecological amplitude/Range
(see Worksheet C)
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A. Widespread |
Reviewed Scientific Publication |
Distribution?
| Section 3 Scoring Matrix |
| Q 3.1 | Q 3.2 | Score |
| A | A, B | A |
| A | C,D,U | B |
| B | A | A |
| B | B,C | B |
| B | D | C |
| C | A,B | B |
| C | C,D | C |
| D | A | B |
| D | B,C | C |
| D | D | D |
| A,B | U | C |
| C,D | U | D |
| U | U | U |
Total Score
B
|
| 3.2 |
?Distribution/Peak frequency
(see Worksheet C)
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
D. Very low |
Other Published Material |
Scores are explained in the "Criteria for Categorizing Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands".
| Section 1: Impact |
Question 1.1 Impact on abiotic ecosystem processes?
Consider the impact on the natural range and variation of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters in ways that significantly diminish the ability of native species to survive and reproduce. Alterations that determine the types of communities that can exist in a given area are of greatest concern. Examples of abiotic processes include:
- fire occurrence, frequency, and intensity;
- geomorphological changes such as erosion and sedimentation rates;
- hydrological regimes, including soil water table;
- nutrient and mineral dynamics, including salinity, alkalinity, and pH;
- light availability (e.g. when an aquatic invader covers an entire water body that would otherwise be open).
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' most severe impact on an abiotic ecosystem process:
A. Severe, possibly irreversible, alteration or disruption of an ecosystem process.
B. Moderate alteration of an ecosystem process.
C. Minor alteration of an ecosystem process.
D. Negligible perceived impact on an ecosystem process.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Other Published Material
|
Identify ecosystem processes impacted:
groundwater/soil water availability, soil chemistry, hydrological resistance (flow regimes and flooding). Populations do not grow dense in western US and have only been found to escape in a couple of area so it is unlikely that abiotic processes are affected to the extent of other Tamarix species. takes up salts through roots and salinates surface soils by both salty litterfall and salt drip, probably depletes water table based on congeners, interferes with waterflow and therefore can exacerbate over-bank flooding; unlike other saltcedar species; light transmission is very low through athel canopy; T. aphylla is not known to increase fire risks and presumably is substantially less flammable than the deciduous species
Sources of information:
Griffin, G. F., D. M. Stafford Smith, S. R. Morton, G. E. Allan, K. A. Masters, and N. Preece. 1989. Status and implications of the invasions of tamarisk (Tamaris aphylla) on the Finke River, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management. 29:297-315
Berry, W. L. 1970. Characteristics of salts secreted by Tamarix aphylla. American Journal of Botany. 57:1226-1230 (salt uptake)
Waisel, Y. 1960. Ecological studies on Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst. Distribution and reproduction. Phyton 15:7-17.
Waisel, Y. 1960. Ecological studies on Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst. The water economy. Phyton 15: 19-29.
Litwak, M. 1957. The influence of T. aphylla on soil composition in the northern Negev of Israel. Bulletin of Resources Council of Israel 6D:38-45
Hagemeyer, J. and Y. Waisel 1988. Excretion of ions (Cd2+, Li+, Na+, and Cl-) by Tamarix aphylla. Physiologia Plantarum. 73:541-546.
|
Question 1.2 Impact on plant community composition,
structure, and interactions?
Consider the cumulative ecological impact of this species to the plant communities it invades. Give more weight to changes in plant composition, structure, and interactions that involve rare or keystone species or rare community types. Examples of severe impacts include:
- formation of stands dominated (>75% cover) by the species;
- occlusion (>75% cover) of a native canopy, including a water surface, that eliminates or degrades layers below;
- significant reduction or extirpation of populations of one or more native species.
Examples of impacts usually less than severe include:
- reduction in propagule dispersal, seedling recruitment, or survivorship of native species;
- creation of a new structural layer, including substantial thatch or litter, without elimination or replacement of a pre-existing layer;
- change in density or depth of a structural layer;
- change in horizontal distribution patterns or fragmentation of a native community;
- creation of a vector or intermediate host of pests or pathogens that infect native plant species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition, structure and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of plant community composition, structure, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of plant community composition.
C. Minor alteration of community composition.
D. Negligible impact known; causes no perceivable change in community composition, structure, or interactions.
U. Unknown.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
reduction in native plant diversity and inhibition of native trees, promotion of non-native plants where it is common, but not found in high densities anywhere in western US. lower species diversity and greater proportion of non-native plants are found in association with T. aphylla in Australia, although it is not clear whether it displaces natives or just occupies sites that have been opened by natural disturbance and possibly made saltier by salt inputs from nearby sites; in U.S. it may be associated with higher diversity than adjoining habitats because seeding of all plants may be higher in more favorable sites
Sources of information:
Griffin, G., D. Smith, S. Morton, G. Allan and K. Masters. 1989. Status and implications of the invasion of tamarisk (T. aphylla) on the Finke River, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 29:297-315.
Barnes, P.L., L.R. Walker and E.A. Power. Tamarix aphylla: A newly invasive tree in southern Nevada. Wetlands (in review).
|
Question 1.3 Impact on higher trophic levels?
Consider the cumulative impact of this species on the animals, fungi, microbes, and other organisms in the communities that it invades. Although a non-native species may provide resources for one or a few native species (e.g. by providing food, nesting sites, etc.), the ranking should be based on the species' net impact on all native species. Give more weight to changes in composition and interactions involving rare or keystone species or rare community types.
Examples of severe impacts include:
- extirpation or endangerment of an existing native species or population;
- elimination or significant reduction in native species' nesting or foraging sites, cover, or other critical resources (i.e., native species habitat), including migratory corridors.
Examples of impacts that are usually less than severe include:
- minor reduction in nesting or foraging sites, cover, etc. for native animals;
- minor reduction in habitat connectivity or migratory corridors;
- interference with native pollinators;
- injurious components, such as awns or spines that damage the mouth and gut of native wildlife species, or production of anti-digestive or acutely toxic chemical that can poison native wildlife species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on community composition and interactions:
A. Severe alteration of higher trophic populations, communities, or interactions.
B. Moderate alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
C. Minor alteration of higher trophic level populations, communities or interactions.
D. Negligible impact; causes no perceivable change in higher trophic level populations, communities, or interactions.
E. Unknown.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify type of impact or alteration:
reduction in native wildlife abundance, and reduced harbivore abundance in Australia there are fewer birds associated with T. aphylla vs. native riparian eucalypt forest, presumably related to lower insect numbers; does contain high phenol levels which can inhibit herbivores, and also salts and other chemicals (e.g. cadmium) that are taken up through roots can further reduce suitability for herbivores; repitles are also reduced in numbers, as litter is denser under tamarix which reduces invertebrate numbers and habitat diversity
Sources of information:
Griffin et al. 1989, Hagemeyer and Waisel 1988
|
Question 1.4 Impact on genetic integrity?
Consider whether the species can hybridize with and influence the proportion of individuals with non-native genes within populations of native species. Mechanisms and possible outcomes include:
- production of fertile or sterile hybrids that can outcompete the native species;
- production of sterile hybrids that lower the reproductive output of the native species.
Select the one letter below that best describes this species' impact on genetic integrity:
A. Severe (high proportion of individuals).
B. Moderate (medium proportion of individuals).
C. Minor (low proportion of individuals).
D. No known hybridization.
U. Unknown.
|
D
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
none, but does hybridize with other Tamarix hybrids between T. aphylla and T. ramosissima are present on lower Colorado River systems (esp. Lake Mead), and these are less suitable for herbivores (including biocontrol agents) than normal T. ramosissima type so may cause control problems in future
Sources of information:
Barnes et al. in review
Gaskin, J.F. and P.B. Shafroth. Hybridization of invasive saltcedars (Tamarix ramosissima, T. chinensis) and athel (T. aphylla) in the southwestern USA, determined from morphology and DNA sequence data. Madro_o (in review).
Caires and Dudley, unpublished data
|
| Section 2: Invasiveness |
Question 2.1 Role of anthropogenic and natural disturbance
in establishment?
Assess this species' dependence on disturbance: both human and natural: for establishment in wildlands. Examples of anthropogenic disturbances include:
- grazing, browsing, and rooting by domestic livestock and feral animals;
- altered fire regimes, including fire suppression;
- cultivation;
- silvicultural practices;
- altered hydrology due to dams, diversions, irrigation, etc.;
- roads and trails;
- construction;
- nutrient loading from fertilizers, runoff, etc.
Examples of natural disturbance include:
- wildfire;
- floods;
- landslides;
- windthrow;
- native animal activities such as burrowing, grazing, or browsing.
Select the first letter in the sequence below that describes the ability of this species to invade wildlands:
A. Severe invasive potential: this species can establish independent of any known natural or anthropogenic disturbance.
B. Moderate invasive potential: this species may occasionally establish in undisturbed areas but can readily establish in areas with natural disturbances.
C. Low invasive potential: this species requires anthropogenic disturbance to establish.
D. No perceptible invasive potential: this species does not establish in wildlands (though it may persist from former cultivation).
U. Unknown.
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe role of disturbance:
natural high flows and anthopogenic reduced flows can both facilitate invasion in Australia, natural flooding (removes native competitors and opens substrate for colonization) promoted seed dispersal and widespread establishment, but reduced natural flooding (Salt and Colorado Rivers) or river regulation and then water level declines (Lake Mead shoreline) provide substrate and conditions for colonization without removal that would occur during natural floods (this is the case for all Tamarix spp.)
Sources of information:
Barnes et al. in review, Griffin et al. 1989, D'Antonio et al. 1999
|
Question 2.2 Local rate of spread with no management?
Assess this species' rate of spread in existing localized infestations where the proportion of available habitat invaded is still small when no management measures are implemented.
Select the one letter below that best describes the rate of spread:
A. Increases rapidly (doubling in <10 years)
B. Increases, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
C
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe rate of spread:
potentially explosive, but typically incremental in U.S. Does not appear to be expanding much, probably stable. flood conditions promoted infestation of hundreds of kilometers of a river in Australia; In lower Coloardo watershed relatively few new recruits occur but regularly along the Lake Mead shoreline, leading to a more gradual infestation rate - this is increasing as densities increase
Sources of information:
Griffin et al. 1989, Barnes et al. in review
|
Question 2.3 Recent trend in total area infested within state?
Assess the overall trend in the total area infested by this species statewide. Include current management efforts in this assessment and note them.
Select the one letter below that best describes the current trend:
A. Increasing rapidly (doubling in total range statewide in <10 years)
B. Increasing, but less rapidly
C. Stable
D. Declining
U. Unknown
|
D
Observational
|
Describe trend:
increasing at Lake Mead, being controlled near Coalinga, not known elsewhere, as densities along shoreline increase there are more seeds produced leading to exponential increase in potential recruits
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.4 Innate reproductive potential?
Assess the innate reproductive potential of this species. Worksheet A is provided for computing the score.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Describe key reproductive characteristics:
relatively low because seed viability is moderate (ca. 22% under best conditions) and seed production period fairly restricted (ca. 50 days, as opposed to many months for some other Tamarix species), but because millions of seeds CAN be produced, under the right conditions the potential for invasion is theoretically very high see above
Sources of information:
Barnes et al. in review, Griffin et al., Waisel 1960a, b, Usher 1986,
|
Question 2.5 Potential for human-caused dispersal?
Assess whether this species is currently spread: or has high potential to be spread: by direct or indirect human activity. Such activity may enable the species to overcome natural barriers to dispersal that would not be crossed otherwise, or it may simply increase the natural dispersal of the species. Possible mechanisms for dispersal include:
- commercial sales for use in agriculture, ornamental horticulture, or aquariums;
- use as forage, erosion control, or revegetation;
- presence as a contaminant (seeds or propagules) in bulk seed, hay, feed, soil, packing materials, etc.;
- spread along transportation corridors such as highways, railroads, trails, or canals;
- transport on boats or boat trailers.
Select the one letter below that best describes human-caused dispersal and spread:
A. High: there are numerous opportunities for dispersal to new areas.
B. Moderate: human dispersal occurs, but not at a high level.
C. Low: human dispersal is infrequent or inefficient.
D. Does not occur.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
water- and wind-dispersed seeds from planted populations, cuttings are planted or can be dispersed by water. Still sold commercially in some areas. humans are important factors because T. aphylla is widely used as a horticultural plant, often near natural resource areas, where seeds are then available for recruitment; flood management creates better conditions for seed dispersal to suitable sites and subsequent establishment
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.6 Potential for natural long-distance dispersal?
We have chosen 1 km as the threshold of "long-distance." Assess whether this species is frequently spread, or has high potential to be spread, by animals or abiotic mechanisms that can move seed, roots, stems, or other propagules this far. The following are examples of such natural long-distance dispersal mechanisms:
- the species' fruit or seed is commonly consumed by birds or other animals that travel long distances;
- the species' fruits or seeds are sticky or burred and cling to feathers or hair of animals;
- the species has buoyant fruits, seeds, or other propagules that are dispersed by flowing water;
- the species has light propagules that promote long-distance wind dispersal;
- The species, or parts of it, can detach and disperse seeds as they are blown long distances (e.g., tumbleweed).
Select the one letter below that best describes natural long-distance dispersal and spread:
A. Frequent long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
B. Occasional long-distance dispersal by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
C. Rare dispersal more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
D. No dispersal of more than 1 km by animals or abiotic mechanisms.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Other Published Material
|
Identify dispersal mechanisms:
wind- and water-dispersed seed, water-dispersed vegetative propagules. Generally does not produce viable seed. seeds can be carried long distances by rivers, as was observed in Australia
Sources of information:
|
Question 2.7 Other regions invaded?
Assess whether this species has invaded ecological types in other states or countries outside its native range that are analogous to ecological types not yet invaded in your state (see Worksheets B, C, and D for California, Arizona, and Nevada, respectively, in Part IV for lists of ecological types). This information is useful in predicting the likelihood of further spread within your state.
Select the one letter below that best describes the species' invasiveness in other states or countries, outside its native range.
A. This species has invaded 3 or more ecological types elsewhere that exist in your state and are as yet not invaded by this species (e.g. it has invaded Mediterranean grasslands, savanna, and maquis in southern Europe, which are analogous to California grasslands, savanna, and chaparral, respectively).
B. Invades 1 or 2 ecological types that exist but are not yet invaded in your state.
C. Invades elsewhere but only in ecological types that it has already invaded in the state.
D. Not known as an escape anywhere else.
U. Unknown.
|
B
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
Identify other regions:
Austalia, Hawaii, Texas and New Mexico, probably northern Mexico, global distribution not clear. Found in dry and riparian areas in other regions.
Sources of information:
|
| Section 3: Distribution |
Question 3.1 Ecological amplitude/Range?
Refer to Worksheet C and select the one letter below that indicates the number of different ecological types that this species invades.
A. Widespread: the species invades at least three major types or at least six minor types.
B. Moderate: the species invades two major types or five minor types.
C. Limited: the species invades only one major type and two to four minor types.
D. Narrow: the species invades only one minor type.
U. Unknown.
|
A
Reviewed Scientific Publication
|
although athel is widespread as a horticultural plant under many growth conditions in California and adjacent regions (ARizona, Mexico), it is only functioning as an invader in a small subset of systems, primarily along the lower Colorado River and associated reservoirs and possibly in the Salton Sea Basin; it has presumably been used ornamentally/culturally since the the 1800's - documentation of its invasive potential was only determined in the last 5 years or so based on studies at Lake Mead (in Nevada) see above
Sources of information:
Barnes et al., Shafroth and Gaskin
|
Question 3.2 Distribution/Peak frequency?
To assess distribution, record the letter that corresponds to the highest percent infested score entered in Worksheet C for any ecological type.
|
D
Other Published Material
|
Describe distribution:
Not common in western US. same as for 3.2
Sources of information:
|
| Reaches reproductive maturity in 2 years or less |
No |
| Dense infestations produce >1,000 viable seed per square meter |
Yes |
| Populations of this species produce seeds every year. |
Yes |
| Seed production sustained over 3 or more months within a population annually |
Yes |
| Seeds remain viable in soil for three or more years |
No |
| Viable seed produced with both self-pollination and cross-pollination |
No |
| Has quickly spreading vegetative structures (rhizomes, roots, etc.) that may root at nodes |
No |
| Fragments easily and fragments can become established elsewhere |
No |
| Resprouts readily when cut, grazed, or burned |
Yes |
| Total points: |
5
|
| Total unknowns: |
0 |
| Total score: |
B?
Scoring Criteria for Worksheet A
A. High reproductive potential (6 or more points).
B. Moderate reproductive potential (4-5 points).
C. Low reproductive potential (3 points or less and less than 3 Unknowns).
U. Unknown (3 or fewer points and 3 or more Unknowns).
|
Related traits:
documented to form hybrids with a more invasive congener, tolerates physiologically stressful conditions such as extreme drought and high salinity soils
Worksheet B - Arizona Ecological Types is not included here
(sensu Holland 1986)
| Major Ecological Types |
Minor Ecological Types |
Code?
A means >50% of type occurrences are invaded;
B means 20% to 50%;
C means 5% to 20%;
D means present but <5%;
U means unknown (unable to estimate percentage of occurrences invaded)
|
| Marine Systems | marine systems | |
| Freshwater and Estuarine | lakes, ponds, reservoirs | |
| Aquatic Systems | rivers, streams, canals | |
| estuaries | |
| Dunes | coastal | |
| desert | D, < 5% |
| interior | |
| Scrub and Chaparral | coastal bluff scrub | |
| coastal scrub | |
| Sonoran desert scrub | |
| Mojavean desert scrub (incl. Joshua tree woodland) | |
| Great Basin scrub | |
| chenopod scrub | |
| montane dwarf scrub | |
| Upper Sonoran subshrub scrub | |
| chaparral | |
| Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and other Herb Communities | coastal prairie | |
| valley and foothill grassland | |
| Great Basin grassland | |
| vernal pool | |
| meadow and seep | |
| alkali playa | |
| pebble plain | |
| Bog and Marsh | bog and fen | |
| marsh and swamp | |
| Riparian and Bottomland habitat | riparian forest | |
| riparian woodland | |
| riparian scrub (incl.desert washes) | D, < 5% |
| Woodland | cismontane woodland | |
| piñon and juniper woodland | |
| Sonoran thorn woodland | |
| Forest | broadleaved upland forest | |
| North Coast coniferous forest | |
| closed cone coniferous forest | |
| lower montane coniferous forest | |
| upper montane coniferous forest | |
| subalpine coniferous forest | |
| Alpine Habitats | alpine boulder and rock field | |
| alpine dwarf scrub | |
|
Amplitude (breadth): |
B |
|
Distribution (highest score): |
D |
Infested Jepson Regions
Click here for a map of Jepson regions
- Central West
- Great Valley
- Northwest
- Southwest
- Sierra Nevada East
- Desert Province
- Mojave Desert
- Sonoran Desert
