Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian olive)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Wood Products
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Elaeagnus angustifolia L.
Preferred Common Name
- Russian olive
- Elaeagnus angustifolia var. angustifolia L.
- Elaeagnus angustifolia var. spinosa Scheid
Other Scientific Names
- Elaeagnus angustifolia var. orientalis (L.) Kuntze
- Elaeagnus hortensis M. Bieb.
- Elaeagnus moorcroftii Wall. ex Schltdl.
- Elaeagnus orientalis L.
- Eleagnus angustifolius
International Common Names
- English: autumn olive; Bohemian olive; narrow-leaved oleaster; Russian silverberry; Russian-olive; silver berry; trebizond date
- Spanish: árbol del paraíso; panjino
- French: arbre d'argent; chalef; olivier de bohême; olivier sauvage
- Chinese: guixiangliu; jinlinghua; qilixiang; shazao; xiangliu; yinliu
- Portuguese: árvore-do-paraíso
Local Common Names
- Germany: Ölweide; Schmalblaettrige Oelweide; Schmalblättrige Ölweide
- Italy: eleagno; eleagno balsamico; olivastro; olivo di boemia
- Netherlands: olijfwilg, smalbladige
- ELGAN (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
- Russian olive
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
E. angustifolia, the Russian olive, is one of several species of Elaeagnus that has proven invasive. It is native to temperate Eurasia but has become especially invasive in riverine areas in the western USA, and is increasingly common in areas already invaded by exotic saltcedars (Tamarix spp.), displacing native vegetation. E. angustifolia has a tendency to spread to areas where it is not desired, necessitating careful monitoring of sites planted with this species as once established, it is difficult to control and nearly impossible to eradicate. It can interfere with agricultural practices, displace native riparian vegetation and choke irrigation ditches. Delaney et al. (2013) has reviewed possible biological control strategies in North America. Vaughan and Mackes (2016) noted that the cost of removal could be defrayed by the sale of wood for artisan use due to its attractive grain and colour.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Elaeagnales
- Family: Elaeagnaceae
- Genus: Elaeagnus
- Species: Elaeagnus angustifolia
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Elaeagnus is placed in its own family, the Elaeagnaceae, also containing the genera Hippophae and Shepherdia. There are about 80 species within the genus with a wide distribution in eastern Asia (Zheng et al., 2006). The Flora of China recognizes two subspecies var. angustifolia and var. orientalis differing in leaf width (eFloras, 2018).
DescriptionTop of page
E. angustifolia is a tall shrub or small tree up to 15 m tall and 100 cm in diameter, with a dense, rounded crown, olive-shaped fruit and long thorns. The branches are flexible, pubescent (grey and scaly) and often have a short thorn at the end. The bark is brown, thin with shallow fissures, peeling in long strips. It has a deep taproot and well-developed lateral root system. It is deciduous, with alternate, silver-grey petiolate leaves with entire margins in small lateral clusters on twigs of the current year, which vary from 2 to 10 cm long and 1 to 4 cm wide, and leaf shape is generally described as lanceolate to oblong and sometimes elliptic. Fragrant flowers are 3–12 mm long, in small axillary clusters on the twigs of the current year. Fruits are drupe- or berry-like, oval-shaped, 1–2 cm long, and a single, relatively large, 6–13 mm, oblong achene is enclosed in the fleshy fruit. The small, yellow flowers occur in late spring and have a distinctive spicy aroma. The average fruit weight was 0.23 g, whereas the average fruit length and width was 0.97 and 0.64 cm, respectively. Productivity varied with the age of the tree stand. The optimum fruiting was observed in 40-year-old stands, with an average yield of 73.8 kg/ha (Baranov and Kositzyn, 2003).
Plant TypeTop of page Broadleaved
DistributionTop of page
E. angustifolia is native to parts of eastern Europe and Asia, and is an important deciduous species of arid and semi-arid areas of northwestern China. It is present in central Europe though the exact western limits of its native range are open to speculation.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Planted||Reference||Notes|
|Afghanistan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|China||Present||Native||Flora of China Editorial Committee (2007); USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Gansu||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Hebei||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Henan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Inner Mongolia||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Liaoning||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Ningxia||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Shaanxi||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Shanxi||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Xinjiang||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Georgia||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|India||Present, Localized||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)||Northwest|
|Iran||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Kyrgyzstan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Mongolia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Pakistan||Present, Localized||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)||Northeast|
|Tajikistan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Turkey||Present||Native||Planted||Gokturk et al. (2006)|
|Turkmenistan||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Native||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Belarus||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Czechia||Present||Introduced||UK, Crop Wild Relative Information System (2005)|
|Germany||Present||Introduced||UK, Crop Wild Relative Information System (2005)|
|Italy||Present||Introduced||UK, Crop Wild Relative Information System (2005)|
|Moldova||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Russia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Central Russia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Eastern Siberia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Southern Russia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Western Siberia||Present||Native||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Bermuda||Present||Introduced||Naturalized||Kairo et al. (2003)||Naturalised|
|Canada||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Alberta||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-British Columbia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Manitoba||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-New Brunswick||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Nova Scotia||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Ontario||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Quebec||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Saskatchewan||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|United States||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Alabama||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Arizona||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-California||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Colorado||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Connecticut||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Delaware||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Idaho||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Illinois||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Iowa||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Kansas||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Kentucky||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Maine||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Maryland||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Michigan||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Minnesota||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Missouri||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Montana||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Nebraska||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Nevada||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-New Hampshire||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-New Jersey||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-New York||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-North Dakota||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Ohio||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Oklahoma||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Oregon||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-South Dakota||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Tennessee||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Texas||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Utah||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Vermont||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Virginia||Present||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Washington||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-West Virginia||Present||Planted||CABI (2005)|
|-Wisconsin||Present||Introduced||Planted||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|-Wyoming||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||USA, USDA-ARS (2008)|
|Australia||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney (2008)|
|-Tasmania||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney (2008)|
|Argentina||Present||Introduced||Missouri Botanical Garden (2008)|
|Chile||Present||Introduced||Loewe M. and González O. (1999)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
It was introduced into the USA in the early 1900s and has become extensively naturalized in riparian areas of western states bordered on the east by North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas (Olson and Knopf, 1986a, b; Shafroth et al., 1995). It became prominent outside cultivated areas in the western USA about 20-50 years after it was introduced, with most recommendations for planting from the early 1900s, and escapes (or naturalization) reported from the 1930s to the 1960s in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho, Texas, and California (Zouhar, 2005). It also occurs extensively in southern Canada from British Columbia almost to the Atlantic coast, though it was not noted as a species of concern in 1996 (Zouhar, 2005) thus invasiveness has been relatively recent. Based on mean normalized cover, Tamarix ramosissima and E. angustifolia are the second and fifth most dominant woody riparian species in the western USA and whereas the dominance of T. ramosissima has been suspected for decades; the regional ascendance of E. angustifolia, however, has only recently been reported (Friedman et al., 2005).
There are suitable sites in Mexico, though a thorough review of literature found no records of its presence there (Katz and Shafroth, 2003). There are single records for Argentina and Chile and a report of it having escaped and is naturalising (Klich, 2000). Dommergues et al. (1999) notes it as introduced into North Africa and as such it is likely to be more widely distributed than indicated. It is also recorded as invasive in Hawaii, at higher elevations on O’ahu island (PIER, 2008), although the PLANTS database (USDA-NRCS, 2008) does not record it as present in that state. It has become naturalised on Bermuda (Kairo et al., 2003).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
It is a declared B list noxious weed in Colorado and a Class C noxious weed in New Mexico, and is on noxious weed lists on a number of other states where present and invasive, e.g. California, or where not yet invasive, e.g. Connecticut (USDA-NRCS, 2008). Noting its presence on species lists for reforestation, and its value in parts of the native range means it may continue to be introduced. It should also be monitored where introduced but not yet invasive.
HabitatTop of page
E. angustifolia occupies many habitats in its native range, including mountainous areas, plains, sands, and desert. Where introduced, it is commonly found growing along floodplains, river banks, stream courses, marshes and irrigation ditches in the western states of the USA, and in desert or dry (<_st13a_metricconverter _w3a_st="on" productid="150 mm">150 mm annual rainfall) areas of western Asia. It is highly invasive along riverine areas in the western USA. It is also noted as present around oases in North Africa (Dommergues et al., 1999). Vegetation types where it is noted as invasive in the USA include natural forests, natural grasslands, desert scrub and savanna, though a very thorough review is included by Zouhar (2005).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural forests||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Riverbanks||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Scrub / shrublands||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Deserts||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Arid regions||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Coastal areas||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Coastal dunes||Present, no further details||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Flowering mainly takes place in May and June while fruits ripen during August to October. Fruits are retained on trees throughout the winter providing a valuable food source for birds (Bartha and Csiszár, 2008). Flowers are insect pollinated (Zouhar, 2005), and trees produce seed after 3-5 years, with birds and small mammals dispersing them in their droppings. The seeds can remain viable for up to 3 years and are capable of germinating over a broad range of soil types (Knopf and Olson, 1984), and germination is enhanced by stratification in moist sand for 90 days at 41°C (Vines, 1960). It bears few fruits if the annual precipitation is over 400 mm. E. angustifolia is mainly established from seed, although cuttings are used in areas with sufficient moisture. Brock (2003) found that the average number of seeds in the seed bank averaged 336-494 seeds/m2 for five sites assessed, with fresh and viable seeds comprising 63% of the seed bank, with the remaining 37% of seeds considered old and with low or no germination potential.
Physiology and Phenology
E. angustifolia is a fast-growing tree, up to 1.8 m per year, and is nitrogen-fixing. A thorough review by Katz and Shafroth (2003) highlights the ecological characteristics enabling its invasiveness, including an adaptation to semiarid riparian habitats, lack of intense pressure from herbivores, and tolerance of the competitive effects of established vegetation. We believe that the success of this species is at least partly due to its ability to take advantage of the reduced levels of physical disturbance that characterize riparian habitats downstream from dams. Control of E. angustifolia is likely to be most promising where natural river flow regimes remain relatively intact (Katz and Shafroth, 2003).
In Montana, USA, Lesica and Miles (2001) conducted a detailed analysis of E. angustifolia regeneration in invaded riverine areas, concluding that because of its long maturation time and low recruitment rate, invasion there will proceed only slowly compared with many exotics. It occurred in multiple-age stands on terraces along both rivers but was rarely found establishing in recently flood-deposited alluvium, and grew quicker than native species, attaining reproductive maturity at about 10 years of age, and, on average, there was less than one new plant recruited per mature tree per year. Beavers felled a high proportion of native poplars, but E. angustifolia was little damaged. Native riparian forests will be replaced by E. angustifolia as old poplars die on upper terraces or are removed by beavers. Poplar establishment and dominance will not be precluded on rivers where flooding regularly reinitiates primary succession beyond the zone of beaver activity, however, E. angustifolia may preclude poplar recruitment by shading seedlings along streams where flooding does not occur or merely deposits alluvium on top of existing vegetation rather than creating new channels or broad point bars.
It is a nitrogen-fixing species, in association with Actinomycete fungi, Frankia spp. (Dommergues et al., 1999), that also nodulate Hippophae and Shepherdia, but not by strains that colonize other actinorhizal plants such as Casuarina and Alnus. Inocula is available for Elaeagnus species, although inoculation may not be necessary since most plants spontaneously nodulate in the nursery or upon planting in the field, and unlike Rhizobium, Frankia survive in the soil for long period without the presence of host plants (Baker, 1992). Wei et al. (2017) noted that even under salt stress E. angustifolia has a strong nitrogen fixation ability.
It is a part of several forest types in its native range, including mixed Tamarix-Elaeagnus forests, Elaeagnus-dominated stands, Populus-Elaeagnus woodlands, and Haloxylon woodlands (Zouhar, 2005). Where invasive in western North America, it is commonly found with other exotic invasive species, the saltcedars (Tamarix spp.). Areas invaded are often populated by native poplars (Populus spp., commonly called ‘cottonwoods’ in the USA).
E. angustifolia is a tree of temperature climates with warm summers and cold to very cold winters. According to Bartha and Csiszár (2008) trees can survive frosts of −30°C but some terminal shoot damage may result. Based on simulation studies, Zhang et al. (2018) noted that the dominant climatic factors limiting its potential distribution range in China are annual range of temperature, annual mean temperature, humidity index and coldness index. It is found in a range of environments as it is tolerant of drought and saline, alkaline or infertile soils (Vines, 1960; Olson and Knopf, 1986a, b), having a well-developed root system. It has little preference as to soil type, temperature, or moisture (Zheng et al., 2006). It is commonly found growing along floodplains and where soil water is present such as riverbanks, though it is also found in deserts or dry areas, though it grows slowly if the water table is below 4 m. It is relatively shade-tolerant once established and can withstand competition from other shrubs and trees.
ClimateTop of page
|B - Dry (arid and semi-arid)||Preferred||< 860mm precipitation annually|
|BS - Steppe climate||Preferred||> 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation|
|BW - Desert climate||Preferred||< 430mm annual precipitation|
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Preferred||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||-40|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||5||9|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||17||27|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-25||-6|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||5||9||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||100||470||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Summer
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Special soil tolerances
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Actias selene ningpoana||Herbivore|
|Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris||Pathogen|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Zheng et al. (2006) report that 10 fungi have been found on members of the genus Elaeagnus, including Aecidium elaeagni which may be host-specific to Elaeagnus spp. and Septobasidium albidum which has a host range that includes E. umbellata as well as species in other genera. Also, 22 arthropods belonging to 10 families of five orders are reported, and the moth, Teia prisca may be specific to E. angustifolia. All natural enemies are listed along with whether they are known to attack the three main invasive Elaeagnus spp., E. angustifolia, E. pungens and E. umbellata.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Birds and small mammals disperse seeds in their droppings after eating the olive-like fruit, and this is likely to be the most important means of dispersal (Baker, 1992). Starlings and raccoon are known to eat the seeds and at least the former do no affect seed viability after digestion (Zouhar, 2005).
Beavers in North America also aid in the establishment of E. angustifolia, though not in the spread of seed, as they selectively cut native poplars and do not damage the exotic invasive thus leaving spaces for E. angustifolia to germinate and grow (Lesica and Miles, 2004).
E. angustifolia was introduced around the world intentionally for a variety of different reasons including as an ornamental, as wildlife habitat, as a honey plant, for erosion control (Katz and Shafroth, 2003), and for reforestation and revegetation.
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Digestion and excretion||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
|Disturbance||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
|Flooding and other natural disasters||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
|Forestry||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
|Habitat restoration and improvement||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
|Ornamental purposes||Yes||Yes||Katz and Shafroth, 2003|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Environment (generally)||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
The costs of controlling E. angustifolia in North American riverine areas are high, though exact figures are not available. In its native range, economic impacts are positive, it being a valuable tree species, especially in northern China. As a valued and widely commercialised ornamental species, it also has a clear positive economic impact as a traded product in the horticultural industry, though no data is available. However, native alternatives are available in all countries where it is introduced and currently sold. Control costs are not available.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
It is relatively shade-tolerant once established and can withstand competition from other shrubs and trees, and can become a dominant climax species, replacing native cottonwoods and willows along water courses in the USA. It can also interfere with agricultural practices, displace native riparian vegetation and choke irrigation ditches (Olson and Knopf, 1986a). For a thorough review of environmental impacts in the USA, refer to Katz and Shafroth (2003) and Zouhar (2005). E. angustifolia influences hydrological processes by increasing floodplain roughness in habitats where woody vegetation would otherwise not occur and adding to riverbank stabilization though literature on such effects is limited (Zouhar, 2005). E. angustifolia leaves and leaf litter have higher nitrogen contents than native species and it may thus add substantial amounts of nitrogen to invaded ecosystems. An assessment of the impacts on nesting success by native birds by Stoleson and Finch (2001) found some differences between E. angustifolia and native vegetation in the USA though not significant, and Zouhar (2005) reviews the conflicting effects of E. angustifolia on native wildlife noting that there is no agreed conclusion.
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
Social ImpactTop of page
The only social impacts are positive, from the aesthetic value as an ornamental species.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Tolerant of shade
- Highly mobile locally
- Long lived
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Increases vulnerability to invasions
- Modification of fire regime
- Modification of hydrology
- Modification of nutrient regime
- Modification of successional patterns
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts tourism
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition - shading
- Competition (unspecified)
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
E. angustifolia fruit are olive-shaped yellow drupes that are edible and taste slightly sweet and pleasant to the taste; it is thought to be the wild olive described by writers of Ancient Greek. The fruit is apparently sold in Turkish markets as “ighide agaghi”. The fruit is consumed fresh and dried in Turkey, Iran and Greece and is used for making alcoholic drinks or preserves such as marmalade. The flowers are used for flavouring liquors (Bartha and Csiszár, 2008; Janick and Paull, 2008).
E. angustifolia has values as an ornamental, and for landscaping, wildlife, revegetation and mine reclamation, though it is not a major source of raw materials where introduced. Although short lived it is a useful landscaping tree for its foliage colour especially useful for hedging (Gilman and Watson, 1993). E. angustifolia has been widely planted in shelterbelts, windbreaks or protective plantings as it is hardy, adaptable to a wide range of soil and moisture conditions and has a dense growth form (Brothers, 1988). It has also been used to revegetate land contaminated by paper mill wastewater (Wagner et al., 1994), potassium (Heinze and Liebmann, 1998), bentonite (Uresk and Yamamoto, 1994), and mine spoilings, and as a bioindicator of heavy metal pollution (Aksoy and Sahin, 1999).
The timber is hard and brownish-yellow with a beautiful grain, being similar to that of white elm (Ulmus pumila, Ulmus americana). It can be used to make farm tools, furniture, mining poles and civil construction, and makes a good fuel and useful fenceposts (Zohar, 2005). The tree is considered a good source for bee foraging. The leaves, shoots, flowers, fruits and bark have been traditionally used in Chinese medicine. Foliage, however, has low palatability for most livestock, though young leaves may be browsed (Zouhar, 2005).
All parts of the tree are used in ethnomedicine to treat a range of conditions. It has a range of activities including astringent, antitussive, antiinflammatory and carminative and well as beneficial effects on joint and arthritic pain, and wound healing. It has also been used as a female aphrodisiac, a liver and spleen tonic, a treatment for diarrhoea, osteoporosis and stomach problems (Farzaei et al., 2015).. Scientific studies on its pharmacological uses have been reviewed by Farzaei et al. (2015) and Hamidpour et al. (2017). Clinical studies on the therapeutic applications of fruit extracts for the treatment of osteoarthritis are reviewed by Mahboubi (2018). Its efficacy is comparable to acetaminophen (1000 mg/day) and ibuprofen (1200 mg/day) with no side effects. The antiinflammatory effects result in the inhibition of TNF-α, COX-1, COX-2 and IL-1β, and induction of cytokines. Saleh et al. (2018) investigated the activity of floral extracts on human oral cancer cell lines FaDu and SCC25. Angiogenesis and cell proliferation was markedly inhibited.
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
- Erosion control or dune stabilization
- Land reclamation
- Shade and shelter
- Soil conservation
- Soil improvement
- Wildlife habitat
Human food and beverage
- Beverage base
- Honey/honey flora
- Essential oils
Wood ProductsTop of page
- Short-fibre pulp
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
It has a superficial resemblance to another invasive species, E. umbellata, though they can be separated. The other two genera within the Elaeagnaceae, Hippophae and Shepherdia are also nitrogen fixing, and are very similar to Elaeagnus in general appearance and growth habits (Baker, 1992).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Control is difficult once E. angustifolia trees are mature and populations are well-established, or may even be nearly impossible to eradicate, though Zouhar (2005) thoroughly review management and control methods employed in the USA, which are largely adapted and reported here. Mowing seedlings, cutting, burning, spraying (Diesburg, 1994; Geyer and Long, 1994), girdling and bulldozing have all been attempted, although cutting, followed by either spraying or burning the stumps is the most effective (Olson and Knopf, 1986b).
Cultural control and sanitary measures
Zouhar (2005) suggested that it is unlikely that exotic species will be eradicated from riparian systems in the south-west USA, and that it is also unlikely that simply removing exotics would allow natives to thrive where conditions no longer favour them. Thus, if a return to natural, sustainable conditions may not be possible then it may be necessary to design management techniques such as timed interval flooding and artificial seedbeds, to maintain riparian function. In conclusion for the south-west USA, managing for native species may be more successful than managing against exotic species. Promotion of natural processes such as natural flooding regimes may be important in managing for desirable native species. However, removal of E. angustifolia may only facilitate recovery of native species where natural disturbance processes still function adequately (Zouhar, 2005). On dammed, regulated rivers and areas with intensive livestock grazing, removal or suppression of E. angustifolia will only have temporary effects unless native species are established. Elimination of the stresses such as high salinity and reduced stream flows, that favour exotic plants over native plants may be necessary if native plant communities are to be sustained (Zouhar, 2005).
Hand-pulling and other manual methods have been attempted with limited success in Arizona, USA (Landis et al., 2006), and ring-barking will also kill older trees (Zouhar, 2005). Also, techniques such as mowing, cutting, girdling, chaining, and bulldozing can suppress E. angustifolia. However, disadvantages can be substantial, including the need for frequent treatment repetition, indiscriminate removal of other species, and severe soil disturbance.
CABI initiated a biological control programme against E. angustifolia in 2007, with the primary focus on species that impact the reproductive output without affecting standing trees, due the potential conflict of interest (Weyl et al., 2017). Of the three species currently under study, the Eriophyid mite, Aceria angustifoliae, is the most promising agent with a high level of specificity and preliminary studies suggest a high impact on fruit and ultimately seed production (Weyl et al., 2017). However, to date no biological control agents have been released against this species.
Herbicides may be effective in gaining initial control of a new invasion or a severe infestation but are rarely a complete or long-term solution to weed management, and herbicides that have been reported as effective at controlling E. angustifolia to varying degrees include glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, picloram, and 2,4-D (Zouhar, 2005).
Foliar spraying of herbicide has proved successful in some cases although the long-term response is unclear and this approach may be neither feasible nor desirable in many riparian settings, though small seedlings are killed with foliar applications of picloram + 2,4-D. Triclopyr ester is an effecting cut stump treatment if applied within 5 minutes of cutting and on smaller trees, otherwise repeated follow-up passes are required, though stem injections is a useful complement (Zouhar, 2005).
Control by utilization
Noting its high value in China and elsewhere in Asia, it may be wise to look in more detail as the uses of this species, in order to assess if there may be any possibility of control by utilization.
Monitoring and Surveillance
As control of E. angustifolia is difficult once trees are mature, so early detection and rapid response are important, and awareness and prevention are probably the most effective tools for managing against it. Ecological niche modelling also holds promise for the development of control and eradication strategies and for risk assessment for species invasions, including E. angustifolia (Peterson et al., 2003). Although, it is clear that a considerable level of research effort has been applied to woody stemmed, exotic/weed species ecology, an approach involving close coupling between classical mathematical species competition models (Lotka-Volterra) and field management predictive capability may provide a useful first approximation (Chant and Chant, 2004).
ReferencesTop of page
Aksoy A, Sahin U, 1999. Elaeagnus angustifolia L. as a biomonitor of heavy metal pollution. Turkish Journal of Botany, 23(2):83-87
Arohonka, T., Rousi, A., 1980. Karyotypes and C-bands in Shepherdia and Elaeagnus. Annales Botanici Fennici, 17(2), 258-263.
Asadiar, L. S., Rahmani, F., Siami, A., 2012. Assessment of genetic variation in Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) based on morphological traits and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) genetic markers. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 6(9), 1652-1661. http://www.academicjournals.org/JMPR/abstracts/abstracts/abstracts2012/9Mar/Asadiar%20et%20al.htm
Asadiar, L. S., Rahmani, F., Siami, A., 2013. Assessment of genetic diversity in the Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) based on ISSR genetic markers. Revista Ciência Agronômica, 44(2), 310-316. http://www.ccarevista.ufc.br doi: 10.1590/S1806-66902013000200013
Barstow, M., 2017. Elaeagnus angustifolia. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/62002626/0
Bartha, D., Csiszar, Á., 2008. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). In: The most important invasive plants in Hungary, [ed. by Botta-Kukát, Z., Balogh, L.]. Vácrátót, Hungary: Institute of Ecology and Botany, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 85-93. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Agnes_Csiszar2/publication/273770067_RUSSIAN_OLIVE_Elaeagnus_angustifolia_L/links/550c1b540cf2528164db3fc9/RUSSIAN-OLIVE-Elaeagnus-angustifolia-L.pdf
Boudraa, S., Hambaba, L., Zidani, S., Boudraa, H., 2010. Mineral and vitamin composition of fruits of five underexploited species in Algeria: Celtis australis L., Crataegus azarolus L., Crataegus monogyna Jacq., Elaeagnus angustifolia L. and Zizyphus lotus L. (Composition minérale et vitaminique des fruits de cinq espèces sous exploitées en Algérie: Celtis australis L., Crataegus azarolus L., Crataegus monogyna jacq., Elaeagnus angustifolia L. et Zizyphus lotus L). Fruits (Paris), 65(2), 75-84. http://www.fruits-journal.org/ doi: 10.1051/fruits/20010003
Brenner DM, 1990. Some minor fruits of temperate Pakistan. 80th Annual Report of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, 67-70
Brock JH, 2003. Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian olive) seed banks from invaded riparian habitats in northeastern Arizona. In: Plant invasions: ecological threats and management solutions [ed. by Child, L.\Brock, J. H.\Brundu, G.\Prach, K.\Pyse?k, K.\Wade, P. M.\Williamson, M.]. Leiden, Netherlands: Backhuys Publishers, 267-276
Brothers TS, 1988. Indiana surface-mine forests: historical development and composition of a human-created vegetation complex. Southeastern Geographer, 28(1):9-33
Bruesti E, Frattegiani M, Pinto da Costa ME, et al. , 1994. First result of a mixed plantation [in Italy] with high quality timber broadleaves [Fraxinus angustifolia, Juglans nigra, Prunus avium and Quercus robur] and N fixing trees [Robinia pseudoacacia and Elaeaqnus anqustifolia]. Mixed stands: research plots, measurements and results, models. Proceedings from the Symposium of the IUFRO Working Groups s4.01, April 25-29, 1994 in Lousa Coimbra, Portugal, 219-228
CAS, 1972. Compendium of Chinese Higher Plants. Institute of Botany of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Beijing, China: Science Press
Chant LJde, Chant CJde, 2004. Development of an elementary quantitative competing species model: potential guidelines for exotic/weed plant species control and ecosystem restoration programs. Ecological Engineering, 22(2):67-75. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFB-4CRYBRW-1&_user=3891418&_handle=V-WA-A-W-D-MsSAYZA-UUW-U-AAWZVCYYBW-AAWVUBEZBW-WYAAUEBYY-D-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=04%2F01%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%236006%232004%23999779997%23511144!&_cdi=6006&view=c&_acct=C000028398&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3891418&md5=dd2b1745b9272ee45ea9c1c2cb70e579
Delaney, K., Espeland, E., Norton, A., Sing, S., Keever, K., Baker, J. L., Cristofaro, M., Jashenko, R., Gaskin, J., Schaffner, U., 2013. Russian olive - a suitable target for classical biological control in North America?. In: Proceedings of the XIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, 11-16 September, 2011 [Proceedings of the XIII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, 11-16 September, 2011], [ed. by Wu, Y., Johnson, T., Sing, S., Raghu, S., Wheeler, G., Pratt, P., Warner, K., Center, T., Goolsby, J., Reardon, R.]. Hilo, USA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. 352.
Diesburg KL, 1994. Species control with low volume, high volume, and basal applications. Proceedings of the forty-ninth annual meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 13-15 December 1994., 101-102
Economou AS, Maloupa EM, 1995. Regeneration of Elaeaqnus anqustifolia from leaf segments of in vitro derived shoots plant cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 40(3):285-288
Editing Board of China Fodder Plants, 1987. Flora of China Fodders, Tomus I and II. Beijing, China: Chinese Agriculture Press
eFloras, 2018. Elaeagnus angustifolia Linnaeus. Flora of China. Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200014543
Esteban ML, Dorda J, Muller A, Bermudez de Castro F, 1987. The Elaeagnus angustifolia wood at Valdemoro (Madrid). [El bosquete de Elaeagnus angustifolia L. de Valdemoro (Madrid).] Boletin de la Estacion Central de Ecologia, 16(31):83-91
Fang WenPei, Zhang ZeRong, 1983. China Flora, Tomus 52(2). Beijing, China: Science Press, 40-41
Farzaei, M. H., Bahramsoltani, R., Abbasabadi, Z., Rahimi, R., 2015. A comprehensive review on phytochemical and pharmacological aspects of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 67(11), 1467-1480. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2042-7158 doi: 10.1111/jphp.12442
Friedman JM, Auble GT, Shafroth PB, Scott ML, Merigliano MF, Freehling MD, Griffin ER, 2005. Dominance of non-native riparian trees in western USA. Biological Invasions, 7(4):747-751. http://www.springerlink.com/media/ha03eawvlm4kvj7hwkak/contributions/m/1/8/4/m184wl20u7665188.pdf
Gaskin, J. F., Hufbauer, R. A., Bogdanowicz, S. M., 2013. Microsatellite markers for Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia; Elaeagnaceae). Applications in Plant Sciences, 1(9), 1300013. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3732/apps.1300013 doi: 10.3732/apps.1300013
Genesys, 2018. Global Gateway to Genetic Resources. https://www.genesys-pgr.org
Geyer WA, Long CE, 1994. Weed control and tolerance of tree seedlings to sulfometuron methyl herbicide. Proceedings of the forty-ninth annual meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 13-15 December 1994 Champaign, Illinois, USA; North Central Weed Science Society, 102-103
Gharibzahedi, S. M. T., Mousavi, S. M., Rahaiee, S., Ghahderijani, M., Ghasemlou, M., 2010. Some aspects of the technological attributes of Russian olive fruit (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). In: International Conference on Agricultural Engineering - AgEng 2010: towards environmental technologies, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 6-8 September 2010 [International Conference on Agricultural Engineering - AgEng 2010: towards environmental technologies, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 6-8 September 2010], Aubiere, France: Cemagref. 188. http://www.cemagref.fr/nos-produits/colloques/ageng-2010-clermont-ferrand-1/conference-ageng-2010-clermont-ferrand/view?set_language=en
Gilman, E. F., Watson, D. G., 1993. Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive. In: Fact Sheet ST-233 . Gainesville, USA: Environmental Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida.3 pp. http://hort.ufl.edu/database/documents/pdf/tree_fact_sheets/elaanga.pdf
Gokturk A, Olmez Z, Temel F, 2006. Some native plants for erosion control efforts in Coruh River Valley, Artvin, Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9(4):667-673. http://www.ansinet.org/pjbs
Goncharova NP, Plugar' VN, Rashkes Ya V, Isamukhamedov A Sh, Glushenkova AI, 1994. Oxygenated fatty acids of the seeds of Elaeagnus angustifolia. Chemistry of Natural Compounds, publ. 1995, 30(6):661-665; Translated from Khimiya Prirodnykh Soedinenii (1994), 715-719
Hamidpour, R., Hamidpour, S., Hamidpour, M., Shahiari, M., Sohraby, M., Shahiari, N., Hamidpour, R., 2017. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.): from a variety of traditional medicinal applications to its novel roles as active antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-mutagenic and analgesic agent. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine, 7(1), 24-29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2225411015000942 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2015.09.004
Heinze M, Liebmann H, 1998. [Begrunung der Kaliruckstandshalden im Sudharzgebiet.]. Afforestation of potassium mine spoil in the southern Harz regionAFZ/Der Wald, Allgemeine Forst Zeitschrift fur Waldwirtschaft und Umweltvorsorge, 53(21):1287-1289
Howe WH, Knopf FL, 1991. On the imminent decline of Rio Grande cottonwoods in central New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist, 36(2):218-224
Janick, J., Paull, R. E., 2008. The encyclopedia of fruit & nuts, [ed. by Janick, J., Paull, R. E.]. Wallingford, UK: CABI.xviii + 954 pp. http://www.cabi.org/cabebooks/ebook/20113366221 doi:10.1079/9780851996387.0000
Kairo M, Ali B, Cheesman O, Haysom K, Murphy S, 2003. Invasive species threats in the Caribbean region. Report to the Nature Conservancy. Curepe, Trinidad and Tobago: CAB International, 132 pp. http://www.issg.org/database/species/reference_files/Kairo%20et%20al,%202003.pdf
Karami, O., Piri, K., 2009. Shoot organogenesis in oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). African Journal of Biotechnology, 8(3), 438-440. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/pdf2009/4Feb/Karami%20and%20Piri.pdf
Khadivi, A., 2018. Phenotypic characterization of Elaeagnus angustifolia using multivariate analysis. Industrial Crops and Products, 120, 155-161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926669018303613 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.050
Kizmaz, M., 1996. Vegetative propagation techniques for some broadleaved tree species. (Bazi yaprakli agaç türlerinin vejetatif yolla üretilmesi üzerine ara?tirmalar). In: Teknik Bülten Serisi - Ormancilik Ara?tirma Enstitüsü Yayinlari , (No. 262) . 62 pp.
Knopf FL, Olson TE, 1984. Naturalization of Russian olive: implications to Rocky Mountain wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 12(3):289-298
Kumar MSM, 1987. Agroforestry systems in China an overview. Evergreen Trichur, 19:21-23
Landis TD, Dreesen DR, Pinto JR, Dumroese RK, 2006. Propagating native Salicaceae for riparian restoration on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona. Native Plants Journal [3rd Pacific Northwest Native Plant Conference, Eugene, Oregon, USA, 14-16 December 2004.], 7(1):52-60. //iupjournals.org/npj
Li ShaoZhong, Li SZ, 1996. Ecological engineering of shelter forest construction on mud seashore of north China. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology. 7(2):122-128
Liu YingXin, 1987. Flora in Desertis Reipublicae Populorum Sinarum, Tomus 2. Beijing, China: Science Press
Loewe M V, González O M, 1999. Silviculture of non-traditional species. Part II. Advances in forestry research. (Silvicultura de especies no tradicionales (II parte): avances en la investigación forestal.) Chile Forestal, 24(278):4-8
Mahboubi, M., 2018. Elaeagnus angustifolia and its therapeutic applications in osteoarthritis. Industrial Crops and Products, 121, 36-45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926669018303625 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.051
Maki T, Pan B, Du MingYuan, et al. , 1994. Effects of forest windbreaks deployed in arid lands, Turpan, northwest China. 1. Effect on climatic improvement. JIRCAS Journal, 1(1):29-38
Olson TE, Knopf FL, 1986. Agency subsidization of a rapidly spreading exotic. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 14(4):492-493
Ripka G, 2005. Recent data to the knowledge of the phytophagous arthropod species of invasive tree and shrub species. (Újabb adatok az inváziós fa- és cserjefajokon élo´´ fitofág ízeltlábú fajok ismeretéhez.) Növényvédelem, 41(3):93-97
Saleh, A. I., Mohamed, I., Mohamed, A. A., Abdelkader, M., Yalcin, H. C., Aboulkassim, T., Batist, G., Yasmeen, A., Al-Moustafa, A. E., 2018. Elaeagnus angustifolia plant extract inhibits angiogenesis and downgrades cell invasion of human oral cancer cells via Erk1/Erk2 inactivation. Nutrition and Cancer, 70(2), 297-305. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hnuc20 doi: 10.1080/01635581.2018.1412472
Schmitz MF, Atanda Y, Esteban ML, (et al), 1990. Nodulation of Elaeaqnus anqustifolia in the wood at Valdemoro (Madrid). Ecologia Madrid, 4:21-129
Shafroth PB, Auble GT, Scott ML, 1995. Germination and establishment of the native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides Marshall subsp. monilifera) and the exotic Russian-olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). Conservation Biology, 9(5):1169-1175; 35 ref
Tesky JL, 1992. Elaeagnus angustifolia. In: Fischer WC, ed. The Fire Effects Information System (Data base). Missoula, MT, USA: USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory
University of Illinois, 1987. Phomopsis canker and dieback of Russian olive. Report on Plant Disease, No. 606, 2 pp. https://ipm.illinois.edu/diseases/rpds/606.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Cirsium wrightii. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Cirsium wrightii : US Fish and Wildlife Service.37 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2015/r2/Q3N3_P01.pdf
USDA-ARS, 2008. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
Vines RA, 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press
Wagner MR, Aw M, Dietrichson J, 1994. Preliminary trials of woody biomass species tolerance to irrigation with pulp and paper mill wastewater. Proceedings from the International Energy Agency (IEA), The Bioenergy Agreement Task VIII meeting, held in Biri, Norway, Sept. 4-9, 1994. Genetic improvement of trees and shrubs, pest-disease control, exchange, evaluation and joint testing for energy purposes. Norwegian-Journal-of-Agricultural-Sciences, No. 18, Supplement, 83-88; 6 ref
Wang Qiang, Ruan Xiao, Huang JunHua, Xu NingYi, Yan QiChuan, 2006. Intra-specific genetic relationship analyses of Elaeagnus angustifolia based on RP-HPLC biochemical markers. Journal of Zhejiang University (Science B), 7(4), 272-278. http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus doi: 10.1631/jzus.2006.B0272
Wei Qi, Wu HaiWen, Liu ZhengXiang, Li HuanYong, Yang XiuYan, Zhang HuaXin, 2017. Biological nitrogen fixation ability and nitrogen distribution of Elaeagnus angustifolia under salt stress. Forest Research, Beijing, 30(6), 985-992. http://www.lykxyj.com
Weyl P, Schaffner U, Asadi G, Klötzli J, Petanovic R, Vidovic B, Cristofaro M, 2017. Annual Report 2016. Delémont, Switzerland: CABI-CH
Yuan ShiLing, 1984. Diseases and Insect Pests of Chinese Forests. Beijing, China: Chinese Forestry Publishing House
Zhan Zhaoning, Wang Guoxiang, Li Fenglan, 1995. Site Types of Chinese Forests. Beijing, China: Chinese Forestry Publishing House
Zhang XiaoQin, Li GuoQing, Du Sheng, 2018. Simulating the potential distribution of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. based on climatic constraints in China. Ecological Engineering, 113, 27-34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857418300156 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.01.009
Zhang YJ, Hou WH, Hou YX, 1988. Ecological and physiological characteristics of several dune-fixing shrubs and trees in the Min-Qin district in Gansu Province. Chinese Journal of Arid Land Research, 1(4):323-333
Zheng H, Wu Y, Ding J, Binion D, Fu W, Reardon R, 2006. Invasive plants of Asian origin established in the US and their natural enemies. Volume 1. Chinese Academy of Sciences and USDA Forest Service. http:\\www.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/IPAOv1ed2.pdf
Zheng WanJun, 1978. Silviculture of Chinese Trees. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press
Zitzer SF, Kawson JO, 1992. Soil properties and actinorhizal vegetation influence nodulation of Alnus glutinosa and Elaeaqnus anqustifolia by Frankia. Plant and Soil, 140(2):197-204
Zouhar K, 2005. Elaeagnus angustifolia. Fire Effects Information System (Online). USDA-FS: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/elaang/all.html
Gokturk A, Olmez Z, Temel F, 2006. Some native plants for erosion control efforts in Coruh River Valley, Artvin, Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 9 (4), 667-673. http://www.ansinet.org/pjbs DOI:10.3923/pjbs.2006.667.673
Kairo M, Ali B, Cheesman O, Haysom K, Murphy S, 2003. Invasive species threats in the Caribbean region. Report to the Nature Conservancy. In: Invasive species threats in the Caribbean region. Report to the Nature Conservancy. Curepe, Trinidad and Tobago: CAB International. 132 pp. http://www.issg.org/database/species/reference_files/Kairo%20et%20al,%202003.pdf
Loewe M V, González O M, 1999. Silviculture of non-traditional species. Part II. Advances in forestry research. (Silvicultura de especies no tradicionales (II parte): avances en la investigación forestal.). Chile Forestal. 24 (278), 4-8.
Ripka G, 2005. Recent data to the knowledge of the phytophagous arthropod species of invasive tree and shrub species. (Újabb adatok az inváziós fa- és cserjefajokon élő fitofág ízeltlábú fajok ismeretéhez.). Növényvédelem. 41 (3), 93-97.
USA, USDA-ARS, 2008. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. In: Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database, Beltsville, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl
ContributorsTop of page
18/01/18 Updated by:
Philip Weyl, CABI, Delémont, Switzerland
29/02/2008 Updated by:
Nick Pasiecznik, Consultant, France
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/