Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:22:46.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water Loss and Salvage in Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Stands on the Pecos River, Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William L. Hatler  and
Charles R. Hart
William L. Hatler*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, the Texas A&M System, 1229 North U.S. Highway 281, Stephenville, TX 76401
Charles R. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas AgriLife Extension Service, the Texas A&M System, 1229 North U.S. Highway 281, Stephenville, TX 76401
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Water use by saltcedar, an invasive phreatophyte, is of significant concern in many riparian zones in the western United States. Diurnal groundwater fluctuations were analyzed to estimate evapotranspiration and water salvage (water available for other ecological functions) in saltcedar stands over a 6-yr period on a site along the Pecos River in Texas. Seasonal stand-level saltcedar water loss at an untreated control site ranged from 0.42 to 1.18 m/yr. Seasonal water salvage following application of imazapyr ranged from 31% 4 yr after treatment to 82% 2 yr after treatment. Significant water savings may be achieved by chemical saltcedar control, dependent upon water use by replacement vegetation and saltcedar regrowth. A regrowth management strategy is essential to maintain long-term water salvage.

Keywords

Imazapyrsaltcedar, Tamarix spp.Saltcedar water usewater salvageriparian evapotranspiration
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 309 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ansley, R. J., Trevino, B. A., and Jacoby, P. W. 1998. Intraspecific competition in honey mesquite: leaf and whole plant responses. J. Range Manage 51:345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. J., Kluitenberg, G. J., Whittemore, D. O., Loheide, S. P. II, Jin, W., Billinger, M. A., and Zhan, X. 2007. A field investigation of phreatophyte-induced fluctuations in the water table. Water Resour. Res 43.W02404, doi:10.1029/2005WR004627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, L. A. 2002. Saltcedar Management Strategies and Effects on Water Quality and Quantity of the Pecos River. M.S. thesis. College Station, TX Texas A&M University. 87 p.Google Scholar
Cleverly, J. R., Dahm, C. N., Thibault, J. R., Gilroy, D. J., and Allred Coonrod, J. E. 2002. Seasonal estimates of actual evapo-transpiration from Tamarix ramosissima stands using three-dimensional eddy covariance. J. Arid Environ 52:181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. J., Sanderson, J. S., Stannard, D. I., and Groeneveld, D. P. 2006. Effects of long-term water table drawdown on evapotranspiration and vegetation in an arid phreatophyte community. J. Hydrol 325:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culler, R. C., Hanson, R. L., Myrick, R. M., Turner, R. M., and Kipple, F. P. 1982. Evapotranspiration Before and After Clearing Phreatophytes, Gila River Flood Plain, Graham County, Arizona. Geological Survey Professional Paper 655-P. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 67 p.Google Scholar
Day, R. W. and Quinn, G. P. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology. Ecol. Monogr 59:433–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, D. A., Piorkowski, J. M., Smith, S. D., Cleverly, J. R., and Sala, A. 1997. Plant water relations of Tamarix ramossissima in response to the imposition and alleviation of soil moisture stress. J. Arid Environ 35:527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1998. Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol 12:326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. Paper 841-F-93-009. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 8 p.Google Scholar
Freund, J. E. 1984. Modern Elementary Statistics. 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall. 250–252.Google Scholar
Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D. C., and Iglewicz, B. 1989. Some implementations of the boxplot. Am. Stat 43:50–54.Google Scholar
Gatewood, J. S., Robinson, T. W., Colby, B. R., Hem, J. D., and Halpenny, L. C. 1950. Use of Water by Bottom-Land Vegetation in Lower Safford Valley Arizona. Geological Water-Supply Paper 1103. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 224 p.Google Scholar
Gay, L. W. and Hartman, R. K. 1982. ET measurements over riparian saltcedar on the Colorado River. Hydrol. Water Resour. in Arizona and the Southwest 12:9–15.Google Scholar
Gerla, P. J. 1992. The relationship of water table changes to the capillary fringe, evapotranspiration, and precipitation in intermittent wetlands. Wetlands 12:91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, E. P. and Nagler, P. L. 2005. Comparative ecophysiology of Tamarix ramosissima and native tress in western U.S. riparian zones. J. Arid Environ 61:419–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. R. 2005. Pecos River Ecosystem Project Progress Report. Pecos River Basin Assessment Program website. http://pecosbasin.tamu.edu. Accessed: November 17, 2008.Google Scholar
Hart, C. R., White, L. D., McDonald, A., and Sheng, Z. 2005. Saltcedar control and water salvage on the Pecos River, Texas 1999–2003. J. Environ. Manage 75:399–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hays, K. B. 2003. Water Use by Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and Associated Vegetation on the Canadian, Colorado and Pecos Rivers in Texas. M.S. thesis. College Station, TX Texas A&M University. 132 p.Google Scholar
Inglis, R., Deuser, C., and Wagner, J. 1996. The Effects of Tamarisk Removal on Diurnal Ground Water Fluctuations. National Park Service Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-96/93. Washington, DC National Park Service. 36 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. I. 1967. Specific Yield-Compilation of Specific Yields for Various Materials. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1662-D. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 74 p.Google Scholar
Loheide, S. P., Butler, J. J., and Gorelick, S. M. 2005. Estimation of groundwater consumption by phreatophytes using diurnal water table fluctuations: a saturated-unsaturated flow assessment. Water Resour. Res 41.W07030. 14 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. W., Cleverly, J. R., and Owens, M. K. 2008. Nocturnal transpiration in riparian Tamarix thickets authenticated by sap flux, eddy covariance and leaf gas exchange measurements. Tree Physiol 28:521–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagler, P. L., Glenn, E. P., and Thompson, T. L. 2003. Comparison of transpiration rates among saltcedar, cottonwood and willow tress by sap flow and canopy temperature methods. Agr. Forest Meteorol 116:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagler, P. L., Glenn, E. P., Didan, K., Osterberg, J., Jordan, F., and Cunningham, J. 2008. Wide-Area estimates of stand structure and water use of Tamarix spp. on the Lower Colorado River: implications for restoration and water management projects. Restor. Ecol 16:136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDC] National Climate Data Center 2004. Monthly Summary Data for NWS and Cooperative U.S. Stations. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/rcsg/database/html. Accessed: October 6, 2008.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. W. 1965. Introduction, Spread and Areal Extent of Saltcedar (Tamarix) in the Western States. USGS Professional Paper No. 491-A. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 12 p.Google Scholar
Rosenberry, D. O. and Winter, T. C. 1997. Dynamics of water-table fluctuations in an upland between two prairie-pothole wetlands in North Dakota. J. Hydrol 191:266–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, A., Smith, S. D., and Devitt, D. A. 1996. Water use by Tamarix ramosissima and associated phreatophytes in a Mojave Desert floodplain. Ecol. Appl 6:888–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, K. E. 2007. Water table fluctuations under three riparian land covers, Iowa (USA). Hydrol. Processes 21:2415–2424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafroth, P. B., Cleverly, J. R., Dudley, T. L., Taylor, J. P., Van Riper, C. III, Weeks, E. P., and Stuart, J. N. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environ. Manage 35:231–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stromberg, J. C., Chew, M. K., Nagler, P. L., and Glenn, E. P. 2009. Changing perceptions of change: the role of scientists in Tamarix and river management. Restor. Ecol 17:177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxell, H. C. 1936. The diurnal fluctuation in the ground-water and flow of the Santa Anna River and its meaning. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 17:496–504.Google Scholar
van Hylckama, T. E. A. 1974. Water Use by Saltcedar as Measured by the Water Budget Method. Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-E. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 30 p.Google Scholar
Weeks, E. P., Weaver, H. L., Campbell, G. S., and Tanner, B. D. 1987. Water Use by Saltcedar and Replacement Vegetation in the Pecos River Floodplain Between Acme and Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-G. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 33 p.Google Scholar
White, W. N. 1932. A Method of Estimating Ground-Water Supplies Based on Discharge by Plants and Evaporation from soil. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 659-A. Washington, DC United States Government Printing Office. 124 p.Google Scholar
Wilcox, B. P., Owens, M. K., Dugas, W. A., Ueckert, D. N., and Hart, C. R. 2006. Shrubs, streamflow, and the paradox of scale. Hydrol. Processes 20:3245–3259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 166–189.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. K. and Schilling, K. E. 2006. Effects of land cover on water table, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge: A field observation and analysis. J. Hydrol 319:328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar