Tamarix chinensis (five-stamen tamarisk)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- 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
- Tamarix chinensis Lour. (1790)
Preferred Common Name
- five-stamen tamarisk
Other Scientific Names
- Tamarix amurensis Hort. ex Chow (1934)
- Tamarix caspica Hort. ex Dippel (1893) nom. nud.
- Tamarix elegans Spach (1836)
- Tamarix gallica var. chinensis (Lour.) Ehrenb. (1827)
- Tamarix gallica var. narbonensis Ehrenb.
- Tamarix gallica var. subtilis Ehrenb.
- Tamarix japonica Hort. ex Dippel
- Tamarix juniperina Bge. (1833)
- Tamarix libanotica Hort. ex Koch (1869)
- Tamarix plumose Hort. ex Carr (1868) nom. nud.
- Tamarix plumose Hort. ex Lavalle (1877)
International Common Names
- English: Chinese tamarisk; salt cedar; saltcedar; tamarisk
- Spanish: pinebete
- French: tamaris à cinq étamine
Local Common Names
- China: chengliu; hongjingtiao; sanchunliu; zhongguo chengliu
- Germany: Chinesische Tamariske; Fuenfmaennige Tamariske; Sommertamariske
- Israel: ashel
- Italy: tamerice a cinque stami
- Japan: gyoryu
- TAACH (Tamarix chinensis)
- TAAJU (Tamarix juniperina)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page This species is fast growing and adapted to extreme environments, with high seed dispersal and vegetative reproduction capacity. Through depletion of soil water and nutrients, general vigour and the salinification of soil it outcompetes native flora, depletes resources for native fauna and has severe environmental consequences in the regions where it is invasive.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Tamaricales
- Family: Tamaricaceae
- Genus: Tamarix
- Species: Tamarix chinensis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The weedy species of Tamarix in North America, small trees or shrubs, include a complex of four very similar species: T. ramosissima, T. chinensis, T. canariensis and, occasionally, T. gallica, plus the distinct T. parviflora, and their hybrids. These species are all deciduous. The distinctive, large evergreen tree, athel (T. aphylla) is also becoming weedy at a few locations (Barnes et al., 2004). Four other species have been introduced that are known only as ornamentals or that have become weakly naturalized (Baum, 1967; Crins, 1989). Recent DNA analyses throw some doubts on the value of the morphological differences by which some species are separated, but the current assumption is that the main invasive entity in North America is a hybrid of T. ramosissima with T. chinensis, while other entities include a hybrid between T. canariensis and T. gallica and the distinct species T. parviflora and T. aphylla (Gaskin and Schall, 2002, 2003). These authors also comment that although the two Asian species, T. ramosissima and T. chinensis overlap in China, hybrids have not been recorded from that region.
Ladyman (2003) refers to recent work suggesting that T. ramosissima and T. chinensis should be considered the same, while Zouhar (2003) refers to the possible hybridization of these species in the USA.
Further details of Tamarix taxonomy can be found in the datasheet on T. ramosissima.
DescriptionTop of page See the datasheet on T. ramosissima for a description of the genus.
T. chinensis is a small tree or shrub, growing up to 8 m high and 30 cm d.b.h., with slender branchlets and grey-green foliage. It usually grows as a multi-stemmed shrub with red-brown to dark or blackish bark. The leaves look like scales, are 1.5-3.5 mm long and are deciduous. The flowers are tiny with five sepals, petals, stamens and a five-carpellate pistil, on a 2- to 7-cm long flower stalk. The petals are pink, white or red and 1-2.3 mm long. T. chinensis is similar to juniper or cedar in appearance. For further details, see Ladyman (2003).
Plant TypeTop of page Broadleaved
DistributionTop of page T. chinensis originates in northern China (Liaoning, Hebei and Shangdong Provinces) and the lower reaches of the Yangtse River valley (northern Jiangsu and Anhui Provinces). Ladyman (2003) notes that it forms dense stands in its native China, but does not specify whether it is considered an invasive there. Helmsley (1888) observed in the 19th century that T. chinensis in China was extensively cultivated and was rarely found in the wild. Gaskin and Schaal (2002) believe this helps explain the relative genetic uniformity within T. chinensis.
Gaskin and Schaal (2002) comment that, although Baum (1978) and others suggest the wide occurrence of both T.chinensis and T. ramosissima across China, their genetic analyses indicated the T. ramosissima genotype exclusively west of central China and the T. chinensis genotype exclusively east of central China.
Distribution TableTop of page
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Planted||Reference||Notes|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Henderson (2001)|
|Afghanistan||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|China||Present||Native||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Zheng, 1997|
|-Anhui||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Fujian||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Gansu||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Guangdong||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Guangxi||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Guizhou||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Hebei||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Henan||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Hubei||Present, Widespread||Native||Planted||Baum (1978)|
|-Hunan||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Inner Mongolia||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Jiangsu||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Liaoning||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Ningxia||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Shaanxi||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Shandong||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Shanxi||Present||Native||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Sichuan||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Xinjiang||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Yunnan||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Zhejiang||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|Iran||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Iraq||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Israel||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|Japan||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Jordan||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|North Korea||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Pakistan||Present||Native||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|South Korea||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Turkey||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Turkmenistan||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|Hungary||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|Romania||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics||Present||Native||CABI (Undated a)|
|United States||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Westbrooks (1998)||First reported: early 1800s|
|-California||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Baum (1967); Crins (1989)|
|-Colorado||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Rice (2004); USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-Georgia||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Kansas||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Mississippi||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
|-Montana||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Rice (2004); USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Planted||USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-North Dakota||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Rice (2004)|
|-Oregon||Present||Introduced||Rice (2004); USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-Texas||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Baum (1967); Crins (1989)|
|-Vermont||Present||Introduced||Planted||CABI (Undated a)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page Aside from its origin in northern China, it is also widely cultivated in eastern and southwestern China, and in Japan, Korea and the USA outside its native range. Deciduous species of tamarisk (saltcedar) have become naturalized in riparian areas of the USA since the early 1800s, although there is some debate about which species are involved, due to difficulty in distinguishing between T. chinensis and T. ramosissima and taxonomic confusion (DeLoach, 1990; Sudbrock, 1993). T. chinensis is an aggressive colonizer on fertile soils and is considered as an alien invasive species in many US states (Hughes, 1993; DeLoach et al., 1996). For example, T. chinensis is listed specifically or as part of the Tamarix complex (T. chinensis, T. parviflora, T. ramosissima) as a noxious weed by the states of Colorado, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming (Rice, 2004). Westbrooks (1998) provides a collective profile of the history and status of three Tamarix species in the USA (T. chinensis, T. parviflora and T. ramosissima). According to this source, introduction occurred at some point in the early 1800s and the three species were recorded widely through a number of river catchments by the 1940s and may have been promoted by man-made alterations to river flooding regimes. Further influences thought to have encouraged spread include disturbance from off-road vehicles, grazing regimes, and deforestation of native trees (Westbrooks, 1998). A further example, from the Pecos River Valley in New Mexico is described in Ladyman (2003). At this site the first records of the species date from 1912 but, by 1915, 600 acres were covered. By 1960, 57,600 acres were occupied. The present status of this species records it from almost all the drainage systems in arid and semi-arid parts of southwestern USA (Westbrooks, 1998).
In South Africa it is a proposed category 1 weed in the north, west and eastern Cape and a proposed category 3 invader throughout the rest of the country (Henderson, 2001). Binggeli (1999) considers it a highly invasive species.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page The high degree of invasiveness demonstrated by this species (and its close relative T. ramossisima) in the USA would advocate extreme caution in the use of this species in similar environmental circumstances elsewhere. Where it has already been introduced, its behaviour should be monitored to gain new insights into its ecology and behaviour, and to detect the earliest signs of invasion.
HabitatTop of page T. chinensis occurs naturally along muddy seashores and up to 3 km into deciduous broad-leaved forest zones of northern China, or on saline soils inland. In the USA, where it is invasive, it grows in desert riparian habitats such as desert washes, seeps and springs (CalEPPC, 1999). It also grows along roadsides in the USA (Ladyman, 2003). In slight contradiction of the observations above, Bean and Russo (1988) consider that, while T. ramosissima is halophilous, T. chinensis is not: they comment that T. ramosissima invades areas of higher salinity in standing water such as marshes, oases and lakes or salty river banks and salty steppes while T. chinensis establishes most readily along major river drainages.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Riverbanks||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Deserts||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Coastal areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page The list of plants, both indigenous and introduced, that are displaced by saltcedar invasions would include virtually every plant known in riparian areas of the western USA and northern Mexico. The invasion and domination of native riparian plant communities most often follows the recession of flood waters or wildfires, which kill the native plants, and then allows the saltcedar seedlings to establish without competition.
Biology and EcologyTop of page Genetics
The chromosome number is 2n=24 for all species of the genus so far investigated (Baum, 1978).
Gaskin and Schaal (2002, 2003) have conducted an extensive DNA comparison of many species of the genus based on field collections by Gaskin throughout most of the Tamarix distribution in the Old World, and compared them with specimens of weedy species from many locations in the western USA. Gaskin found no hybrids in the Old World, although a few records are reported in the literature.
Gaskin and Schaal (2002), using introns selected from both chloroplastic and nuclear DNA, identified a strong concentration of haplotype 2/genotype 2/2 (= T. chinensis) in eastern China; also of haplotype 1/genotype 1/1 in eastern Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (= T. ramosissima) and with scattered populations in Georgia and Azerbaijan and in Iran and Iraq. Haplotype 7 (not identified to species) was found in eastern Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Georgia and Azerbaijan, and genotype 12/12 (also not identified to species) was found in Azerbaijan.
Gaskin and Schaal (2003) identified four invasive genetic entities of Tamarix in the USA: T. aphylla, T. parviflora, and two entities that could not be defined at the species level but represented a T. ramosissima/T. chinensis entity and a T. gallica/T. canariensis entity. They also found evidence for hybridization between T. ramosissima, T. canariensis and T. gallica and T. aphylla which adds to the confusion in identification.
A comparison with US genotypes (Gaskin and Schaal, 2002) revealed that T. ramosissima was the dominant species in Montana, Wyoming, Nevada and southern California, and with a few sites in Oklahoma, Texas and Arizona. T. chinensis was the dominant species in Texas (especially western Texas) and New Mexico, with some sites in several other states. The T. ramosissima x T. chinensis hybrid was the most common genotype in New Mexico and was common in Oklahoma, Nevada, California and Montana. The unidentified 12/12 genotype and hybrids with T. ramosissima or T. chinensis were uncommon but found in nearly all western states. Hybrids with haplotype 7 were found in Idaho.
These species/hybrid complexes usually cannot be distinguished morphologically in the field. Some species or hybrids predominate and may be the only form in some areas but in other areas several species and hybrids may occur at the same site.
Physiology and Phenology
In the USA, T. chinensis flowers from April to August (Ladyman, 2003). Further details likely to be common to the weedy deciduous saltcedars can be found in the datasheet on T. ramosissima.
This species is able to reproduce vegetatively from root suckers and from seed. Water and birds disperse the seed (Ladyman, 2003). A number of authors including Ladyman comment that the longevity of the seeds is short in humid conditions. Tamarix has a reproductive advantage over some native north American desert riparian trees and shrubs in that it can reproduce in the absence of regular seasonal flooding (Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, 2004).
T. chinensis is unable to tolerate winter temperatures below -20°C, but has been introduced into the southern Xinjiang region of China for revegetation and landscaping purposes, thus surviving severe winters.
T. chinensis is light-demanding, but has good adaptability to dry atmospheric conditions, high temperatures in the dry season and low temperatures during winter. It grows on a variety of soils, tolerating dry, waterlogged and saline-alkaline soils. The leaves have the ability to exude salt and Chinese tamarisk grown in extreme saline-alkaline soils (approximately 1% or up to 15,000 p.p.m.) can effectively reduce soil salt content (Zheng, 1978; Liu, 1991). The deep taproot and fine root system allows T. chinensis to grow well even when partially covered by sand.
In its introduced North American range, the distribution overlaps with native cottonwoods (Populus spp.), a species which is outcompeted by introduced Tamarix.
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)||-30|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||4||13|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||21||26|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-5||4|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||6||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||50||1500||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Summer
Soil TolerancesTop of page
- seasonally waterlogged
Special soil tolerances
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Most of the work on natural enemies has been carried out for T. ramosissima (see the separate datasheet for more details). It is reasonable to expect that the same pests could attack T. chinensis.
Potential biological control agents from France have been evaluated for use in the USA (Sobhian et al., 1998). These include a defoliating weevil Coniatus tamarisci (Fornasari, 1997). Ladyman (2003) cited recent work on an Israeli mealybug Trabutina mannipara and a chinese leaf beetle Diorhaba elongata (DeLoach et al., 1996), but noted the lack of a commercial control agent for use in the USA.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
The small seeds are dispersed by water (Ladyman, 2003) and by wind.
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Ladyman (2003) reports that birds can disperse seeds.
This tree/shrub has been widely introduced to arid areas outside its native range including North America and South Africa where it has subsequently become invasive.
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||seeds|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||seeds|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||Negative|
ImpactTop of page The control of T. chinensis is costly. The economic impact of saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) in North America is discussed in the datasheet on T. ramosissima.
Environmental ImpactTop of page T. chinensis is implicated in increasing soil salinity by deposition of saline leaf litter and interfering in natural aquatic systems.
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page Stream flow and flooding regime may be affected by Tamarix spp. (Luken and Thieret, 1997). Westbrooks (1998) regards Tamarix spp. to constitute a major threat to native American plant assemblages. It is outcompeting native cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and other species. The impact on desert riparian systems is considered so severe that the habitat is now extremely rare (Westbrooks, 1998). Ladyman (2003) reports that tamarisk stands growing in the USA host 50% fewer small mammal species, and poorer reptile, amphibian and insect communities. The plant is also unsuitable as a nesting site for many of the indigenous birds and squirrels and there is little bird food associated with Tamarix, because the insect fauna is poorer and the seeds are not nutritious (Ladyman, 2003). The high tannin content of the leaves makes them relatively unpalatable for mammals (Ladyman, 2003). More details on the impact of Tamarix spp. on wildlife in the USA are included in the datasheet on T. ramosissima.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Highly mobile locally
- Has high reproductive potential
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts tourism
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page T. chinensis has been used to stabilize sand dunes and improve saline soils (15-20 years) before crop cultivation. The shoots are elastic and have traditionally been used to weave agricultural items, such as baskets and crates. The wood is hard and can be used to make agricultural tools and for fuelwood. Products include building timbers, fences, boxes and pulp. Young leaves and shoots are used to treat diaphoresis and measles. It has been planted in shelterbelts and as a windbreak/hedge plant and is also used in gardens as an ornamental plant.
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
- Boundary, barrier or support
- Erosion control or dune stabilization
- Shade and shelter
- Soil improvement
Human food and beverage
- Honey/honey flora
- Carved material
- Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
Wood ProductsTop of page
- Short-fibre pulp
Sawn or hewn building timbers
- Exterior fittings
- Medium density fibreboard
- Industrial and domestic woodware
- Tool handles
- Wood carvings
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page Baum (1968) provides a key which separates T. chinensis (and T. ramosissima) from T. canariensis and T. gallica by the insertion of the filaments between the lobes of the nectary disc (hololophic), while in the other two species they are inserted on the lobes themselves (synlophic) (well illustrated by Gaskin and Schaal, 2003). T. chinensis differs from T. ramosossima in having 'smaller, entire sepals, ovate petals and shorter bracts'. Bean and Russo (1988) emphasise the differences in petal shape: obovate (wider distally) in T. ramosissima and oblong-ovate (narrowed distally) in T. chinensis. Gaskin and Schaal (2003) also refer to differences in raceme width (3-4 mm in T. ramosissima and 5-7 mm in T. chinensis) and in the insertion of the filaments (below the sinuses of the disc in T. ramosissima and in the sinuses of the disc in T. chinensis). This paper incidentally includes excellent drawings of the leaves and nectary discs of several of the species/species complexes. While these differences may be seen under the microscope, they are not readily observable in the field.
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.Cultural Control
Although fire is sometimes used to control this species it is not a recommended technique because the wood is difficult to burn because while cool fires may fail to kill the plant, hot fires may create bare ground that is unsuitable for indigenous species (Ladyman, 2003). See the T. ramosissima datasheet for other approaches likely to be applicable to T. chinensis.
Cutting and removal is effective only if the roots are removed or destroyed and without this, T. chinensis may be stimulated to produce new shoots (Ladyman, 2003). Cutting followed by some degree of shading (with dark plastic sheeting or by other vegetaion) has been more effective (Ladyman, 2003). See the T. ramosissima datasheet for other approaches likely to be applicable to T. chinensis.
Ladyman (2003) reports that Tamarix is 'sensitive' to herbicides and that the best treatments involve cutting followed by herbicide treatment of stumps or cut-stump/frill applications. The technique relies on the herbicide being applied within a very short time after cutting and although expensive minimizes potential impacts on non-target species. See the datasheet on T. ramosissima for more details of chemical treatments for Tamarix control.
Potential biological control agents from France have been evaluated for use in the USA (Sobhian et al., 1998). Ladyman (2003) cited recent work on an Israeli mealybug Trabutina mannipara and a Chinese leafbeetle Diorhaba elongata, but noted the lack of a commercial control agent for use in USA.
Most of the biological control research in the USA has focussed on Tamarix ramosissima (see the separate datasheet); it is likely that biocontrol agents againts this species will also be effective against T. chinensis.
ReferencesTop of page
Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, 2004. Invasive species in Sonoran desert ecosystems. http://www.desertmuseum.org/program/invasive_Riparian.html.
Barnes PL; Walker LR; Powell EA, 2004. Tamarix aphylla: A newly invasive tree in southern Nevada. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of America Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 1-6 August 2004. Abstracts, 31.
Baum B, 1968. 2. Tamarix L. In: Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA, eds, Flora Europaea, Volume 2. Rosaceae to Umbelliferae. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 292-294.
Baum BR, 1967. Introduced and naturalized tamarisks in the United States and Canada (Tamaricaceae). Baileya, 15:19-25.
Baum BR, 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
CalEPPC, 1999. Exotic pest plant list. California Exotic Pest Plant Council, USA. http://www.caleppc.org/info/plantlist.html.
Crins WJ, 1989. The Tamaricaceae in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 70:403-425.
DeLoach CJ, 1990. Prospects for biological control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in riparian habitats of the southwestern United States. Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds Rome, Italy; Istituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale, Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste, 307-314
DeLoach CJ; Gerling D; Fornasari L; Sobhian R; Myartseva S; Mityaev ID; Lu QG; Tracy JL; Wang R; Wang JF; Kirk A; Pemberton RW; Chikatunov V; Jashenko RV; Johnson JE; Zheng H; Jiang SL; Liu MT; Liu AP; Cisneroz J, 1996. Biological control programme against saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States of America: progress and problems. Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on biological control of weeds, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 19-26 January 1996., 253-260; 44 ref.
Fornasari L, 1997. Host specificity of Coniatus tamarisci (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) from France: potential biological control agent of Tamarix spp. in the United States. Environmental Entomology, 26(2):349-356; 31 ref.
Gagne RJ; Sobhian R; Isidoro N, 1996. A review of the genus Psectrosema (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), Old World pests of tamarix (Tamaricaceae), and description of three new species. Israel Journal of Entomology, 30:53-69.
Gaskin JF; Schaal BA, 2002. Hybrid Tamarix widespread in U.S. invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(17):11256-11259; 26 ref.
Helmsley ALS, 1888. Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany), 23:346.
Henderson L, 2001. Alien Weeds and Invasive Plants. Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 12. Cape Town, South Africa: Paarl Printers.
Ladyman JAR, 2003. Tamarix chinensis Lour. In: Tamarisk control in southwestern United States, Weeds, 10, 332-333. http://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pdf/shrubs/Tamarix%20chinensis.pdf.
Leon GLL de; Vasquez AR; Leon GLL de; West NE, 1995. Distribution of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) in northern Mexico.
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 MT, 1991. Research on screening out saline-tolerant species in the Genus Tamarix and its afforestation trials.
Liu MT, 1995. Research and application on large scale on genus Tamarix. Gansu China: Lanzhou University, 1-340.
Luken JO; Thieret JW, 1997. Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 324 pp.
Maki T; Pan B; Du MY; Uemura K, 1993. Effects of double line windbreaks [Tamarix chinensis] on the microclimate, sand accumulation and crop [cotton and sorghum] on arid land in Turfan [Xinjiang], China. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 49(4):247-255.
Rice PM, 2004. INVADERS Database System (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu). Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-4824.
Shafroth PB; Friedman JM; Ischinger LS, 1995. Effects of salinity on establishment of Populus fremontii (cottonwood) and Tamarix ramosissima (saltcedar) in southwestern United States. Great Basin Naturalist, 55(1):58-65.
Smirnov IA, 1984. Resistance of woody plants to gases in an arid climate. Translated from Ekologiya. Soviet Journal of Ecology, 14(3):156-158.
Sudbrock A, 1993. Tamarisk control. I. Fighting back - An overview of the invasion, and a low-impact way of fighting it. Restoration and Management Notes, 11(1):31-34.
Traci C; Ceuca G; Catrina I, 1983. Aspects of the improvement and afforestation of river-marine sands of the Danube delta. [Aspects de l'amelioration et de l'afforestation des sables fluvio-marins du delta du Danube.] Bulletin de l'Academie des Sciences Agricoles et Forestieres, Romania, 12:149-154.
USDA-ARS, 2005. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2005. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov.
Westbrooks RG, 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Washington DC, USA: Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), 109 pp.
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 WanJun, 1978. Silviculture of Chinese Trees. Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press.
Zheng WJ, 1997. Forest trees of China, Vol.3. Beijing, China: China Forestry Publishing House, 3580-3585.
Zouhar K, 2003. Tamarix spp. In: Fire Effects Information System. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.
Baum BR, 1967. Introduced and naturalized tamarisks in the United States and Canada (Tamaricaceae). In: Baileya, 15 19-25.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Crins WJ, 1989. The Tamaricaceae in the southeastern United States. In: Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 70 403-425.
Henderson L, 2001. Alien Weeds and Invasive Plants. In: Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 12, Cape Town, South Africa: Paarl Printers.
Rice PM, 2004. INVADERS Database System., Missoula, MT, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu
USDA-ARS, 2005. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysimple.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2005. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov
Westbrooks RG, 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book., Washington DC, USA: Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). 109 pp.
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
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/