Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />D (70 ({7 cr <br /> <br />)uvial adjustments to the spread of tamarisk <br />h the Colorado Plateau region <br /> <br />,Ie <br /> <br />rn <br />se <br /> <br />,;~';i <br /> <br />WILLIAM L. GRAF Department of Geography, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 <br />I \' ~ i <br /> <br />ld <br />)1- <br />le- <br />'n- <br />Ise <br /> <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br /> <br />Tamarisk, a shrub or low tree that was <br />'" artificially introduced into the American <br />!lSouthwest in the late 1800s, has spread <br />';:'r.r,oughout the Colorado Plateau region by <br />!OfX\lPying islands, sand bars, and beaches <br />.Iong streams. Historical photographs <br />~!$bow that tamarisk spread from northern <br />~Fona to the upper reaches of the Col- <br />~'orado and Green Rivers at a rate of about <br />"20 kmIyr, Detailed studies on the Green <br />River in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, <br />Show that the plant has trapped and <br />'stabilized sediment, causing an average re- <br />duction in channel width of 27%. Photo- <br />'grammetric analysis of historical ground <br />photography, including photos from John <br />Wesley Powell's 1871 expedition, and re- <br />tent aerial photographs supplemented by <br />field surveys provided quantitative data. <br />I Expanded islands and channel-side bars <br />: exhibit allometric relationships as they <br />Idtange, apparently maintaining a balance <br />I between turbulence and friction. Overbank <br />lOooding is common on the tamarisk- <br />'~tabilized features. <br /> <br />;sa <br />In- <br /> <br />se, <br />76, <br />iak <br /> <br />~es <br /> <br />ac- n <br /> <br />f:: <br /> <br /> <br />ler- 1 <br /> <br />cli-!I <br />uic <br />;0. , <br />of H <br />)pe (1 <br />les: :1 <br />>1m ij <br />H <br /> <br /> <br />i1NTRODucnON <br />hi <br />~ H <br />;1 A review of historical ground photog- <br />',, <br />:1SPhy taken by explorers, surveyors, and <br />;'!iprofessional photographers indicates that <br />'"within the past century the most dramatic <br />:jlchange in the fluvial landscape of the Col- <br />. do Plateau has been in the riparian vege- <br />rion, The changes shown in.Figure 1 are <br />ical of most of the major water courses <br />the Colorado Plateau, where shifting <br />nd bars, beaches, and islands that were <br />ce sparsely vegetated are now covered by <br />e thickets of tamarisk, In most cases, <br />'thickets consist of a few fully developed <br />risk trees 10 to 12 m (30 to 36 ft) taU, <br />rounded by closely spaced plants 5 to <br />(15 to 18 ft) tall, that exclude other <br />.~. By the late 1960s, tamarisk proba- <br /> <br />bly covered 500,000 ha (1.3 million acres) <br />in the American Southwest (Robinson, <br />1965), <br />Because tamarisk colonizes moist sand <br />surfaces, grows rapidly, and stabilizes sed- <br />iment, it is an effective geomorphic agent, <br />The early photography, beginning with <br />John Wesley Powell's second expedition, in <br />1871, shows substantial growth of stable <br />surfaces near channels as a result of the <br />tamarisk invasion (Shoemaker and Ste- <br />phens, 1969). Baars and Molenaar (1971), <br />Lohman (1974), and Shoemaker and Ste- <br />vens (1975) offered examples of compara- <br />tive photographs, Islands have become <br />longer and wider, channel-side bars have <br />widened, and some alluvial-fan surfaces <br />have expanded, accompanied by concomit- <br />ant reductions in channel widths. The <br />largest changes in near-channel landforms <br />have taken place in canyons with relatively <br />gentle gradients and floors that are at least <br />two channel widths wide. Changes are <br />much smaller in canyons with steep gra- <br />dients, rapids, and floors that are almost <br />completely occupied by the river channel. <br />The net result of channel restrictions in <br />the canyons is increased frequency of over- <br />bank flooding and increased roughness of <br />near-channel surfaces that serve as channel <br />perimeter during high-water periods (Had- <br />ley, 1961). An appreciation of fluvial re- <br />sponses to the growth of tamarisk in areas <br />already infested will permit accurate pre- <br />diction of changes in areas yet to be in- <br />vaded. Additionally, the responses of fluvial <br />systems to biotic disruptions may shed <br />some light on the general nature of such sys- <br />tems and may be useful in the analysis of <br />other types of disruption in the canyons of <br />the Colorado Plateau, 1ncreasing recre- <br />ational use of the canyons necessitates a <br />clear understanding of environmental sta- <br />bility for effective land management, <br />In this paper, I discuss the introduction <br />and spread of tamarisk in the Colorado <br />River system and the adjustments of the <br /> <br />gica! Society of America Bulletin, v, 89, p. 1491-1501,13 figs.," tables, October 1978, Doc, no, 81005, <br />p <br />~' <br /> <br />1491 <br /> <br />fluvial geomorphic systems of the Colorado <br />Plateau to the growth of tamarisk. <br /> <br />Tamarisk <br /> <br />The accepted common names of tam- <br />arisk, salt cedar and sa!tcedar, are usually <br />applied to many of the 90 species of the <br />plant, but in the southwestern United States <br />and for purposes of this paper, the term <br />"tamarisk" applies to the species Tamarix <br />chinensis (Lour.) (Horton and Campbell, <br />1974). <br />When it was introduced into the south- <br />western United States in the mid-1800s, <br />tamarisk was cultivated as an ornamental <br />shrub in California and later as an erosion- <br />control plant in New Mexico (Robinson, <br />1958), but after escaping cultivation in the <br />late 1800s the plant occupied moist sand <br />surfaces with little competition from native <br />plants (Horton, 1962, 1964), The cause of <br />the spread of the plant throughout the <br />drainage systems of the region has been a <br />matter of controversy, Most previous <br />workers have relied on written accounts <br />and field collections (for example, Christen- <br />sen, 1962), which are useful but sometimes <br />less accurate than photographic evidence. <br />Bowser (1960) reported that the plant <br />was growing under natural conditions <br />along the Virgin River in southwestern <br />Utah in the 1890s, while Christensen <br />(1962) stated that the plant was not grow- <br />ing in the Green or Colorado systems before <br />1925, Christensen (1962) suggested that the <br />most rapid spread of the plant was from <br />1935 to 1955, but Harris (1966) and <br />Clover and Jotter (1944) contended that the <br />plant was common in most major drainage <br />systems of the Southwest after 1920. <br />Photographic evidence resolves some of <br />these issues, <br />The geomorphic effects of plant growth <br />near channels is significant in humid re- <br />gions, as shown by Zimmerman and others <br />(1967) and Thornes (1970), and in arid re- <br />