Print Report

A0842 Tamarix spp. Ruderal Riparian Scrub Alliance

Type Concept Sentence: This alliance is composed of shrublands dominated by introduced species of Tamarix, including Tamarix chinensis, Tamarix gallica, Tamarix parviflora, and Tamarix ramosissima. It forms moderately dense to dense thickets on banks of larger streams, rivers and playas across the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico.

Common (Translated Scientific) Name: Tamarisk species Ruderal Riparian Scrub Alliance

Colloquial Name: Ruderal Tamarisk Riparian Scrub

Hierarchy Level:  Alliance

Type Concept: This alliance is composed of shrublands dominated by introduced species of Tamarix, including Tamarix chinensis, Tamarix gallica, Tamarix parviflora, and Tamarix ramosissima. It forms moderately dense to dense thickets on banks of larger streams, rivers and playas across the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. Introduced from the Mediterranean, Tamarix spp. have become naturalized in various sites, including salt flats, springs, and especially along streams and regulated rivers, often replacing Salix or Prosopis spp. shrublands or other native vegetation. A remnant herbaceous layer may be present, depending on the age and density of the shrub layer. These species have become a critical nuisance along most large rivers in the semi-arid western U.S.

Diagnostic Characteristics: Riparian woodlands and washes dominated by Tamarix spp.

Rationale for Nominal Species or Physiognomic Features: No Data Available

Classification Comments: Stands also occur in Oklahoma, and this alliance includes them as well.

Similar NVC Types: No Data Available
note: No Data Available
Physiognomy and Structure: No Data Available

Floristics: This alliance consists of shrublands with moderate to dense cover of a tall-shrub layer that is solely or strongly dominated by Tamarix, including (commonly) Tamarix chinensis, Tamarix gallica, Tamarix parviflora, and Tamarix ramosissima. Other introduced species of Tamarix have been documented in the U.S., but whether these form full stands is yet to be documented. Additional Tamarix species include Tamarix africana, Tamarix aphylla, Tamarix aralensis, Tamarix canariensis, and Tamarix tetragyna (Kartesz 1999). Other native shrubs may be present and include species of Salix (especially Salix exigua) and Prosopis, Rhus trilobata, and Sarcobatus vermiculatus, but with low cover (if shrub species are codominant, then stand may be classified as a native shrubland type). Scattered native Acer negundo, Elaeagnus angustifolia, Populus spp., or Salix amygdaloides trees may also be present. Depending on stand age and density of the shrub layer, an herbaceous layer may be present. Associated native species include Distichlis spicata, Sporobolus airoides, and introduced forage species such as Agrostis gigantea, Agrostis stolonifera, and Poa pratensis. Other introduced herbaceous species such as Conyza canadensis, Lepidium latifolium, and Polypogon monspeliensis may also be present.

Dynamics:  Tamarix spp. are extremely drought- and salt-tolerant, produce prolific wind-dispersed seeds over much of the growing season, can resprout after burning or cutting, and, if kept moist, buried or broken branches will develop adventitious roots and grow. Stands seem to favor disturbed and flow-regulated rivers, but establish well in pristine areas, too. Once established, stands are extremely difficult to eradicate, requiring cutting and herbicide application on stumps to prevent resprouting (Smith and Douglas 1989).

In California, tamarisk species are among the most invasive, widely distributed, and troublesome non-natives to infest wetlands. Multiple, interacting factors facilitate tamarisk invasion, including intentional planting for erosion control and windbreaks; land conversion to agriculture; reduced flood frequencies after damming rivers; changing and stabilizing waterflows, times, and rates downstream from reservoirs; and increased salinity levels in the rivers from evaporation in the reservoirs (Everitt 1980). Tamarisk vigorously sprouts and increases flowering and seed production after fire. Mixed riparian stands often change to tamarisk-dominated stands after fires (Zouhar 2003b, Brooks and Minnich 2006). Active programs to remove tamarisk are ongoing in the state (Lovich 2000). Discouraging tamarisk establishment by biological and mechanical control is the most effective method of control. Once established in large stands, control and eradication efforts are difficult and costly; many managers recommend integrated management approaches (Lovich 2000, Zouhar 2003b, Carpenter 2005).
Environmental Description:  These widespread shrublands are common along larger streams, rivers, and around playas. Elevation ranges from 75 m below sea level to 1860 m. Sites include riverbanks, floodplains, basins, sandbars, side channels, springs, salt flats, and other saline habitats. Substrates are commonly thin sandy loam soil over alluvial deposits of sand, gravel or cobbles. Stands grow especially well along regulated rivers and rivers with agricultural runoff that increase the salts in the water.
Geographic Range: This alliance is found throughout the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico.

Nations: MX,US

States/Provinces:  AZ, CA, CO, MT, MXCHH, MXCOA, MXSON, NM, NV, OK, TX, UT, WY


Confidence Level: Low - Poorly Documented

Confidence Level Comments: No Data Available
Grank: GNA

Greasons: No Data Available
Type Name Database Code Classification Code
Class 1 Forest & Woodland Class C01 1
Subclass 1.B Temperate & Boreal Forest & Woodland Subclass S15 1.B
Formation 1.B.3 Temperate Flooded & Swamp Forest Formation F026 1.B.3
Division 1.B.3.Nd Western North American Interior Flooded Forest Division D013 1.B.3.Nd
Macrogroup 1.B.3.Nd.90 Interior West Ruderal Flooded & Swamp Forest & Woodland Macrogroup M298 1.B.3.Nd.90
Group 1.B.3.Nd.90.a Tamarisk species - Russian-olive Ruderal Riparian Forest & Scrub Group G510 1.B.3.Nd.90.a
Alliance A0842 Tamarisk species Ruderal Riparian Scrub Alliance A0842 1.B.3.Nd.90.a
Association CEGL003114 Tamarisk species Ruderal Riparian Shrubland CEGL003114 1.B.3.Nd.90.a
Concept Lineage: No Data Available

Predecessors: No Data Available

Obsolete Names: No Data Available

Obsolete Parents: No Data Available
Synonomy: = Tamarix spp. (Tamarisk thickets) Semi-natural Stands (Sawyer et al. 2009) [63.810.00]
? Tamarix chinensis Community Type (Hansen et al. 1995)
? Tamarix chinensis shrubland alliance (Hoagland 1998a)
? Tamarix pentandra Community Type (Szaro 1989)
? Tamarix ramosissima (Salt cedar) Association (Nachlinger and Reese 1996)
= Tamarix spp. Semi-Natural Shrubland Stands (Evens et al. 2012)
= Tamarix spp. Semi-Natural Stands (Tamarisk thickets) (Buck-Diaz et al. 2012)
= Tamarix spp. Semi-natural Shrubland Alliance (Evens et al. 2014)
= Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi-Natural Alliance (CNPS 2017) [63.810.00]
? Salt cedar series (Paysen et al. 1980)
= Saltcedar Alliance (Muldavin et al. 2000a)
? Saltcedar Series (Dick-Peddie 1993)
= Tamarisk Scrub (#63810) (Holland 1986b)
= Tamarisk series (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995)
Concept Author(s): M.S. Reid and K.A. Schulz, in Faber-Langendoen et al. (2013)

Author of Description: G. Kittel

Acknowledgements: No Data Available

Version Date: 12-18-14
  • Brooks, M. L., and R. A. Minnich. 2006. Southeastern deserts bioregion. Pages 391-414 in: N. G. Sugihara, J. W. van Wagtendonk, K. E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A. E. Thode, editors. Fire in California''s ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley.
  • Brown, D. E., editor. 1982a. Biotic communities of the American Southwest-United States and Mexico. Desert Plants Special Issue 4(1-4):1-342.
  • Buck-Diaz, J., S. Batiuk, and J. M. Evens. 2012. Vegetation alliances and associations of the Great Valley ecoregion, California. California Native Society, Sacramento, CA. [http://cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/pdf/great_valley_eco-vegclass2012.pdf]
  • CNPS [California Native Plant Society]. 2015-2017. A manual of California vegetation [online]. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. [http://vegetation.cnps.org/].
  • Campbell, C. J., and W. A. Dick-Peddie. 1964. Comparison of phreatophyte communities on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Ecology 45:492-501.
  • Carpenter, A. T. 2005. Element stewardship abstract for Tamarix spp. [online]. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
  • DiTomaso, J. M., and E. A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and other western States. Two volumes. Publication 3488. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, CA. 1808 pp.
  • Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 244 pp.
  • Evens, J. M., D. Roach-McIntosh, and D. Stout. 2012. Vegetation descriptions for Joshua Tree National Park. Unpublished report submitted to USDI, National Park Service, Mojave Desert Inventory and Monitoring Network. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
  • Evens, J. M., K. Sikes, D. Hastings, and J. Ratchford. 2014. Vegetation alliance descriptions for Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Death Valley National Park and Mojave National Preserve. Unpublished report submitted to USDI National Park Service, Mojave Desert Network Inventory and Monitoring Program. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
  • Evens, J., and S. San. 2006. Vegetation alliances of the San Dieguito River Park region, San Diego County, California. Final report (August 2005) Version 2 (revised May 2006). Prepared by California Native Plant Society in cooperation with the California Natural Heritage Program of the California Department of Fish and Game and San Diego Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 271 pp.
  • Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Drake, M. Hall, G. Kittel, S. Menard, C. Nordman, M. Pyne, M. Reid, M. Russo, K. Schulz, L. Sneddon, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2013-2019b. Screening alliances for induction into the U.S. National Vegetation Classification: Part 1 - Alliance concept review. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
  • Hansen, P. L., R. D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B. J. Cook, J. Joy, and D. K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification and management of Montana''s riparian and wetland sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 646 pp. plus posters.
  • Hefley, H. M. 1937. Ecological studies on the Canadian River floodplain in Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Ecological Monographs 7:347-402.
  • Hoagland, B. W. 1998a. Classification of Oklahoma vegetation types. Working draft. University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Norman. 43 pp.
  • Holland, R. F. 1986b. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame-Heritage Program and Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento. 156 pp.
  • Johnson, S. 1987b. Can tamarisk be controlled? Fremontia 15:19-20.
  • Keeler-Wolf, T., C. Roye, and K. Lewis. 1998a. Vegetation mapping and classification of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California. Unpublished report on file at California Natural Diversity Database, California Department Fish and Game, Sacramento.
  • Keeler-Wolf, T., S. San, and D. Hickson. 2005. Vegetation classification of Joshua Tree National Park, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, California. Unpublished report to the National Park Service. California Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
  • Klein, A., and J. Evens. 2006. Vegetation alliances of western Riverside County, California. Contract Number: P0185404. Final report prepared for The California Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Division. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 332 pp. [http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/VegMappingRpt_Western_Riverside.pdf]
  • La Doux, T., C. Lea, and E. Babich. 2013. A summary of the Joshua Tree National Park Vegetation Mapping Project: NPS Vegetation Inventory Program. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/JOTR/NRTR--2013/723. National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO. 839 pp.
  • Little, E. L., Jr. 1996. Forest trees of Oklahoma: How to know them. Oklahoma Forestry Services, State Department of Agriculture. Publication No. 1, Revised Edition No. 14. Oklahoma City. 205 pp.
  • Lovich, J. 2000. Tamarix ramosissima/Tamarix chinensis/Tamarix gallica/Tamarix parviflora. Pages 312-317 in: C. C. Bossard, J. M. Randall, and M. C. Hoshovsky, editors. Invasive plants of California''s wildlands, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  • Muldavin, E., P. Durkin, M. Bradley, M. Stuever, and P. Mehlhop. 2000a. Handbook of wetland vegetation communities of New Mexico. Volume I: Classification and community descriptions. Final report to the New Mexico Environment Department and the Environmental Protection Agency prepared by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
  • Nachlinger, J. L., and G. A. Reese. 1996. Plant community classification of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark and Nye counties, Nevada. Unpublished report submitted to USDA Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Las Vegas, NV. The Nature Conservancy, Northern Nevada Office, Reno, NV. 85 pp. plus figures and appendices.
  • Neill, W. M. 1985. Status reports on invasive weeds: Tamarisk. Fremontia 12:22.
  • Paysen, T. E., J. A. Derby, H. Black, Jr., V. C. Bleich, and J. W. Mincks. 1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California. General Technical Report PSW-45. USDA Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Berkeley, CA.
  • Powell, A. M. 1988b. Trees and shrubs of Trans-Pecos Texas including Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains national parks. Big Bend Natural History Assoc., Inc. 536 pp.
  • Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento CA. 1300 pp.
  • Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 471 pp.
  • Smith, S. D., and C. L. Douglas. 1989. The ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) in Death Valley National Monument and Lake Mead National Recreation Area: An assessment of techniques and monitoring for saltcedar control in the park system. University of Nevada Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit Report 041/03, Las Vegas. 63 pp.
  • Sproul, F., T. Keeler-Wolf, P. Gordon-Reedy, J. Dunn, A. Klein, and K. Harper. 2011. Vegetation classification manual for western San Diego County. AECOM, California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego Area Governments.
  • Szaro, R. C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants Special Issue 9(3-4):70-139.
  • Thomas, K. A., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. Franklin, and P. Stine. 2004. Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program: Central Mojave vegetation mapping database. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Regional Science Center. 251 pp.
  • USBOR [U.S. Bureau of Reclamation]. 1976. Flora and terrestrial vertebrate studies of the Grand Valley, Colorado. Pages 56-85 and 283-354 in: Final report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation by Ecology Consultants, Inc., Fort Collins, CO.
  • Von Loh, J., D. Cogan, K. Schulz, D. Crawford, T. Meyer, J. Pennell, and M. Pucherelli. 2002. USGS-USFWS Vegetation Mapping Program, Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Utah. USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Remote Sensing and GIS Group, Technical Memorandum 8260-02-03. Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO. 225 pp.
  • Zouhar, K. 2003b. Tamarix spp. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). [http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/]