Tamarix aphylla, Athel tamarisk
Tesky, Julie L. 1992. Tamarix aphylla, Athel tamarisk. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://research.fs.usda.gov/feis/species-reviews/tamaph
| Abbreviation | Common Name | Scientific Name | Classification | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plants | ||||
| TAMAPH | Athel tamarisk | Tamarix aphylla | Life Form: Plants/Tree Kingdom: Plantae Class: Dicot Order: Violales Family: Tamaricaceae Genus: Tamarix | Fed. Protected: No Nativity: Nonnative Invasiveness: Invasive |
Taxonomy
The currently accepted scientific name for Athel tamarisk is Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst. [2,11,16]. There are no recognized subspecies, varieties, or forms.
Synonyms
- Tamarix articulata Vahl.
Other Common Names
None
General Distribution
Athel tamarisk is an introduced species native to Africa and the Middle East [1,16,20,21]. It has escaped cultivation in some areas of the United States but has not naturalized. It occurs from southern Texas to southern Arizona and California [1,16,20,31].
States
- United States: AZ CA HI NV NM TX UT
Site Characteristics
Where established outside of cultivation, Athel tamarisk commonly occurs on salt flats, springs, and other saline habitats especially along streams and rivers [22]. Athel tamarisk has been found along the saline portions of the lower Colorado and Gila rivers and in the Salton Sea Basin [27]. It also grows along irrigation ditches in bottomlands [2].
Athel tamarisk, San Bernardino County, California. (CC0 1.0)
Athel tamarisk is a facultative phreatophyte [33]. It is drought resistant and is tolerant of alkaline and saline soils [16]. The minimum annual rainfall required for reasonable growth is less than 16 inches (400 mm) [26]. The elevational range for Athel tamarisk in California is from below sea level to 5,000 feet (1,524 m) [33]; in Texas it occurs from 1,850 to 2,000 feet (564-610 m) [22].
Plant Communities
Athel tamarisk is sometimes found associated with the following species: screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), big saltbrush (Atriplex lentiformis), arrow-weed (Pluchea sericea), western honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana), desert saltbrush (Atriplex polycarpa), pickleweed (Allenrolfea occidentalis), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) [27,33].
Botanical Description
Athel tamarisk flowers, Yavapai County, Arizona. (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Athel tamarisk is an introduced, fast-growing, evergreen tree. It has a rounded or irregular, spreading crown of many heavy, stout branches and long, drooping twigs [2,16,31]. It attains a height of 33 to 60 feet (10-18 m) and may attain a diameter of 2.5 feet (0.8 m). The leaves are tiny scales 0.06 inch (1.5 mm) long. The twigs are wiry, very slender, and jointed. The bark becomes thick and deeply furrowed into long narrow ridges on the trunk and smooth on the branches [2,16,19,31]. Athel tamarisk has a deep taproot [33].
Raunkiaer Life Form (Raunkiaer 1934)
- Phanerophyte
Seasonal Development
Athel tamarisk generally flowers from March through August [16,25,29]. The fruit matures in late summer [16].
Regeneration Processes
Athel tamarisk flowers and produces many seeds, but most of the seeds are sterile [9,34]. Its main method of propagation is vegetative. It sprouts from the root crown or forms adventitious roots from submerged, broken or buried stems [9,18].
Successional Status
Information on the successional status of Athel tamarisk is lacking. It sprouts from on-site surviving root crowns in initial communities [9,26]. Although it does not colonize sites by seed, it can colonize disturbed areas by broken limbs carried by water [9,34].
Immediate Fire Effects
Athel tamarisk generally survives fire [26], although severe fire may destroy the root crown and prevent sprouting.
Postfire Regeneration Strategy (Stickney 1989)
- Survivor species; on-site surviving root crown or caudex
Fire Adaptations
Athel tamarisk is a fire-adapted species. The high ash (30-40%) and salt content of its foliage make it hard to burn even when dry. Athel tamarisk sprouts from the root crown after fire [26].
Plant Response to Fire
Athel tamarisk generally sprouts from the root crown after fire [26,33].
Fire Regimes
For fire regime information, search FEIS for this species by entering the species name on the Advanced Search page and selecting “Fire Regime” as the publication type.
Fire Management Considerations
Because of the fire-resistant qualities of Athel tamarisk foliage, it is a good species for use in fire shelterbelts [26].
In very arid regions, Athel tamarisk can be killed by piling cut debris on the stumps and burning. This method resulted in 100 percent success rate in killing Athel tamarisk [4].
Federal Status
No special status.
Other Status
No entry.
Importance to Wildlife and Livestock
Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) communities in general are less valuable to wildlife than are native riparian plant communities [12,30].
Palatability and Nutritional Value
Tamarisk are relatively unpalatable to most classes of livestock and wildlife [5]. Athel tamarisk foliage contains phenolic acids which may prevent herbivory [32].
Cover Value
No entry.
Value for Rehabilitation or Restoration of Disturbed Sites
Athel tamarisk is planted for windbreaks and shade [7,24]. It is frequently planted in desert areas [10,24]. Cuttings root best in moist, loose, low salinity soil [18].
Other Uses
Athel tamarisk is planted as an ornamental from California to Texas [2]. Tamarisk flowers provide an important source of pollen for the European honeybee [14,15].
Athel tamarisk wood is used for fuel. It produces a fragrant odor when burned [16]. The wood is fine grained, light colored, and capable of taking a high polish. It has been proposed for use in making furniture and fenceposts [2,16,21].
Other Management Considerations
Unlike the deciduous tamarisk species, which have become serious weed species in the Southwest, Athel tamarisk seldom escapes cultivation and, therefore, rarely becomes a problem [9].
Where it is unwanted, Athel tamarisk may be controlled by cutting stumps and applying herbicide or mechanically excavating stumps followed by direct treatment of roots with herbicide [33].
Table A1— Forest and range ecosystems, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) physiographic regions, Kuchler plant associations, Society for American Foresters (SAF) forest cover types, and Society for Rangeland Management (SRM) rangeland cover types in which this species occurs.
Forest and Range Ecosystems (Garrison et al. 1977)
- FRES21 Ponderosa pine
- FRES29 Sagebrush
- FRES30 Desert shrub
- FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
- FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
- FRES40 Desert grasslands
BLM Physiographic Regions (Bernard and Brown 1977)
- 3 Southern Pacific Border
- 6 Upper Basin and Range
- 7 Lower Basin and Range
- 12 Colorado Plateau
- 13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
- 14 Great Plains
Kuchler Plant Associations (Kuchler 1964)
- K019 Arizona pine forest
- K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
- K027 Mesquite bosque
- K033 Chaparral
- K034 Montane chaparral
- K038 Great Basin sagebrush
- K039 Blackbrush
- K040 Saltbrush - greasewood
- K041 Creosotebush
- K057 Galleta - threeawn shrubsteppe
- K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
- K071 Shinnery
SAF Cover Types (Eyre 1980)
- 68 Mesquite
- 95 Black willow
- 235 Cottonwood - willow
- 237 Interior ponderosa pine
- 238 Western juniper
SRM Rangeland Cover Types (Shiflet 1994)
- No entry.
1. Baum, Bernard R. 1967. Introduced and naturalized tamarisks in the United States and Canada [Tamaricaceae]. Baileya. 15: 19-25. [17655]
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. 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]
6. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
7. Felger, Richard S. 1990. Non-native plants of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Tech. Rep. No. 31. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 93 p. [14916]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Horton, J. S. 1957. Inflorescence development in Tamarix pentandra pallas (Tamaricaceae). Southwestern Naturalist. 2(4): 135-139. [6363]
11. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Little, Elbert L. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American trees, northern region. New York: Chanticleer Press, Inc. [18067]
17. 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]
18. Malcolm, C. V. 1972. Establishing shrubs in saline environments. In: McKell, Cyrus M.; Blaisdell, James P.; Goodin, Joe R., tech. eds. Wildland shrubs--their biology and utilization: An international symposium; Proceedings; 1971 July; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 392-403. [1517]
19. Mason, Herbert L. 1957. A flora of the marshes of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 878 p. [16905]
20. McClintock, E. [n.d.] [6897]
21. Mozingo, Hugh N. 1987. Shrubs of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 342 p. [1702]
22. Powell, A. Michael. 1988. Trees & shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. Big Bend National Park, TX: Big Bend Natural History Association. 536 p. [6130]
23. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
24. 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]
25. Shreve, F.; Wiggins, Il. 1964. cc. cc. [18068]
26. Simpfendorfer, K. J. 1989. Continuation of #17679 - Keywords. Lands and Forests Bull. No. 30. East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Lands and Forests Division, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. 55 p. [17680]
27. Turner, Raymond M.; Brown, David E. 1982. Sonoran desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 181-221. [2375]
28. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. National list of scientific plant names. Vol. 1. List of plant names. SCS-TP-159. Washington, DC. 416 p. [11573]
29. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
30. 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]
31. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
32. Wisdom, Charles S.; Gonzalez-Coloma, Azucena; Rundel, Philip W. 1987. Phytochemical constituents in a Sonoran Desert plant community. In: Provenza, Frederick D.; Flinders, Jerran T.; McArthur, E. Durant, compilers. Proceedings--symposium on plant-herbivore interactions; 1985 August 7-9; Snowbird, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 84-87. [7401]
33. Rowlands, Peter G. 1989. History and treatment of the salt cedar problem in Death Valley National National Monument. 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: 46-56. [11349]
34. Neill, William M. 1989. Volunteers play role in tamarisk control in desert riparian communities (California). Restoration and Management Notes. 7(1): 48. [8057]