Jump to content

Tamarix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Salt cedar)
"Tamarisk" redirects here. For other uses, see Tamarisk (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with tamarind, a leguminous tree grown for its edible pods, or tamarack, an American larch tree.

Tamarix
Tamarix aphylla in its natural habitat in Revivim, Israel
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Clade: Tracheophytes
Clade: Angiosperms
Clade: Eudicots
Order: Caryophyllales
Family: Tamaricaceae
Genus: Tamarix
L.[1]
Species

See text

The genus Tamarix (tamarisk, salt cedar, taray) is composed of about 50–60 species of flowering plants in the family Tamaricaceae, native to drier areas of Eurasia and Africa.[2] The generic name originated in Latin and may refer to the Tamaris River in Hispania Tarraconensis (Spain).[3]

Description

[edit]

They are evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees growing to 1–18 m (3+1⁄2–59 ft) in height and forming dense thickets. The largest, Tamarix aphylla, is an evergreen tree that can grow to 18 m (59 ft) tall. They usually grow on saline soils,[4] tolerating up to 15,000 ppm soluble salt, and can also tolerate alkaline conditions.[5]

Tamarisks are characterized by slender branches and grey-green foliage. The bark of young branches is smooth and reddish brown. As the plants age, the bark becomes gray-brown, ridged and furrowed.[4]

The leaves are scale-like, almost like that of junipers,[6] 1–2 mm (1/20" to 1/10") long, and overlap each other along the stem. They are often encrusted with salt secretions.[4]

The pink to white flowers appear in dense masses on 5–10 cm (2" to 4") long spikes at branch tips from March to September,[4][7] though some species (e.g., T. aphylla) tend to flower in the summer until as late as November.[8]

Selected species

[edit]
Tamarix gallica in flower
A Tamarix aphylla specimen in its natural habitat in Algeria
Tamarix stricta in Ateybeh village, Boushehr, Iran

Formerly placed here

[edit]

Ecology

[edit]

Tamarix aphylla can spread both vegetatively, by submerged stems producing adventitious roots, and sexually, by seeds. Each flower can produce thousands of tiny (1 mm; 1/20" diameter) seeds that are contained in a small capsule usually adorned with a tuft of hair that aids in wind dispersal. Seeds can also be dispersed by water. Seedlings require extended periods of soil saturation for establishment.[10] Tamarisk trees are most often propagated by cuttings.[11]

These trees grow in disturbed and undisturbed streams, waterways, bottom lands, banks, and drainage washes of natural or artificial water bodies, moist rangelands and pastures.[citation needed]

Whether Tamarix species are fire-adapted or not is unclear, but in many cases a large proportion of the trees are able to resprout from the stump after fires, although not notably more so than other riverine species. They likely cannot resprout from root suckers. In some habitats where they are native, wildfire appears to favour the establishment of riverine trees such as Populus, to the detriment of Tamarix. Conversely, they do appear to be more flammable, with more dead wood produced and debris held aloft. In the southwestern USA, most stands studied appear to be burning at faster intervals than they can fully mature and die of natural causes.[12]

Tamarix species are used as food plants by the larvae of some Lepidoptera species including Coleophora asthenella which feeds exclusively on T. africana.[13]

As an invasive species

[edit]

In some specific riparian habitats in the Southwestern United States and California, Tamarix ramosissima has naturalized and become a significant invasive plant species.[12] In other areas, the plants form dense monocultures that alter the natural environment and compete with native species already stressed by human activity.[14] Recent scientific investigations have generally concluded that the primary human-caused impact to desert riparian ecosystems within the Colorado River Basin is the alteration of the flood regime by dams; Tamarix ramosissima is relatively tolerant of this hydrologic alteration compared to flood-dependent native woody riparian species such as willow, cottonwood, and box elder.[15]

Competition with native plants

[edit]

Research on competition between tamarisk seedlings and co-occurring native trees has found that Tamarix seedlings are not competitive over a range of environments,[16][17][18] but stands of mature trees effectively prevent native species' establishment in the understory, due to low light, elevated salinity, and possibly changes to the soil biota.[19][20] Box elder (Acer negundo, a native riparian tree) seedlings survive and grow under higher-shade conditions than Tamarix seedlings, and mature Tamarix specimens die after 1–2 years of 98% shade, indicating a pathway for successional replacement of Tamarix by box elder.[21] Anthropogenic activities that preferentially favor tamarisk (such as changes to flooding regimens) are associated with infestation.[22][23][24] To date, Tamarix has taken over large sections of riparian ecosystems in the western United States that were once home to native cottonwoods and willows,[25][26][27][28] and are projected by some to spread well beyond the current range.[29]

In a 2013 study which examined if native plant growth was hindered by the microbiota associated with the presence of Tamarix, a relatively new invasive plant to the northern United States, Elymus lanceolatus and other native plants in fact grew better when a small soil sample from areas where Tamarix trees grew was mixed in with the potting soil, as opposed to samples without these plants. This was thought to indicate the presence of beneficial mycorrhizae. The presence of Tamarix plants has also been shown to boost soil fertility in a number of studies, and it also increases soil salinity. Two studies found that Tamarix plants are able to limit the recruitment of Salix and Populus tree species, in the latter case possibly due to interfering with the trees ability to form symbiotic relationships with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, in contrast to the grass and legume species studied in 2013.[30]

Because it is much more efficient at both obtaining water from drying soil and conserving water during drought, it can outcompete many native species, especially after the habitat is altered by controlling flood regimes and disturbance of water sources.[14] Because the trees are able to concentrate salts on the outside of their leaves, dense stands of the tree will form a layer of high salinity on the topsoil as the leaves are shed.[14] Although this layer is easily washed off during flooding events, in areas where the rivers are channelled and floods are controlled, this salty layer inhibits the germination of a number of native plants.[12] However, a study involving more than a thousand soil samples across gradients of both flood frequency and Tamarix density concluded that "flooding may be the most important factor for assessing floodplain salinity" and "soils under Tamarix canopies had lower surface soil salinity than open areas deprived of flooding suggesting that surface evaporation may contribute more to surface soil salinity than Tamarix".[31]

Investigation of effects of invasion

[edit]

Tamarix species are commonly believed to disrupt the structure and stability of North American native plant communities and degrade native wildlife habitat, by outcompeting and replacing native plant species, salinizing soils, monopolizing limited sources of moisture, and increasing the frequency, intensity, and effect of fires and floods [citation needed]. While individual plants may not consume larger quantities of water than native species,[32][33] large, dense stands of tamarisk do consume more water than equivalent stands of native cottonwoods.[34] An active and ongoing debate exists as to when the tamarisk can out-compete native plants, and if it is actively displacing native plants or it just taking advantage of disturbance by removal of natives by humans and changes in flood regimens.[35][36][37][38][39]

Controls

[edit]

Pest populations of tamarisk in the United States can be dealt with in several ways. The National Park Service has used the methods of physically removing the plants, spraying them with herbicides, and introducing northern tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda carinulata) in the national park system. Various attempts to control tamarisk have been implemented on federal lands including Dinosaur National Monument, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and White Sands Missile Range.[40][41] After years of study, the USDA Agricultural Research Service found that the introduced tamarisk beetles (Diorhabda elongata) eat only the tamarisk, and starve when no more is available, not eating any plants native to North America.[42]

Uses

[edit]
  • Tamarisk species, notably T. ramosissima[12] and T. tetrandra.[43] are used as ornamental shrubs, windbreaks, and shade trees:[44]
  • In the Southwest of the United states of America, tamarisk was introduced to help erosion control.[45]
  • In Greece recipes may call for tamarix (salt cedar) – known locally as almyriki[citation needed] –  for cooking and eating as a wild green vegetable.[46]
  • On the steppes of Asia, the Saka may have used tamarisk wood (combined with horn) to produce tremendously powerful bows hundreds of years before the common era.[47]
  • The wood may be used for carpentry or firewood: it is a possible agroforestry species.[48][49]
  • At certain times of year, scale insects feeding upon the tender twigs of tamarisk plants excrete a sweet substance known as honeydew, which has been gathered for use as a food source and sweetener for thousands of years. The substance is also known locally as "manna", and some scholars have suggested that this substance is the biblical manna that fed the Israelites during their flight from Egypt, though others dispute this interpretation.[50]
  • Tamarisks play a role in anti-desertification programs in China.[51][failed verification][52]

In North America

[edit]

The tamarisk was introduced to the United States as an ornamental shrub, a windbreak, and a shade tree in the early 19th century. In the 1930s, during the Great Depression, tree-planting was used as a tool to fight soil erosion on the Great Plains, and different trees were planted by the millions in the Great Plains Shelterbelt, including salt cedars.[53][54]

Eight species are found in North America. They can be divided into two subgroups:[10]

Evergreen species

Tamarix aphylla (Athel tree), a large evergreen tree, does not sexually reproduce in the local climate and is not considered a seriously invasive species.[10] The Athel tree is commonly used for windbreaks on the edge of agricultural fields and as a shade tree in the deserts of the Southwestern United States.[55]

Deciduous species

The second subgroup contains the deciduous tamarisks, which are small, shrubby trees, commonly known as "saltcedars". These include T. pentandra, T. tetrandra, T. gallica, T. chinensis, T. ramosissima and T. parviflora.[10]

In culture

[edit]
Tamarisk tree (almyriki) in Milos island, Greece
  • In the Quran 34:16, the people of Saba were punished when "[Allah] converted their two garden (rows) into gardens producing bitter fruit and tamarisks...".[40]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Genus: Tamarix L." Germplasm Resources Information Network. United States Department of Agriculture. 1998-04-28. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
  2. ^ Baum, Bernard R. (1978), "The Genus Tamarix", The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities
  3. ^ Quattrocchi, Umberto (2000), CRC World Dictionary of Plant Names, vol. 4 R–Z, Taylor & Francis US, p. 2628, ISBN 978-0-8493-2678-3, archived from the original on 2023-03-02, retrieved 2020-12-03
  4. ^ a b c d "Tamarix spp. - Tamarisk, Saltcedar, Salt Cedar - Southeastern Arizona Wildflowers and Plants". 16 March 2010. Archived from the original on 2022-05-23. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  5. ^ Dyer, Mary H. (6 May 2016). "Is Tamarix Invasive: Helpful Tamarix Information". www.gardeningknowhow.com. Archived from the original on 29 November 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
  6. ^ Dirr, Michael A. (1997), Dirr's Hardy Trees and Shrubs, an illustrated encyclopedia, p. 392.
  7. ^ "TAMARISK". Southern Living. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
  8. ^ "Plants of the Bible | Tamarix aphylla". www.flowersinisrael.com. Archived from the original on 30 November 2021. Retrieved 22 May 2022.
  9. ^ a b "GRIN Species Records of Tamarix". Germplasm Resources Information Network. United States Department of Agriculture. Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2011-02-18.
  10. ^ a b c d "Invasives Database: Invasive Plants, Tamarix aphylla, Athel tamarisk". Texas Invasive. Archived from the original on 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2017-12-22.
  11. ^ Huxley, A. (1992). The New RHS Dictionary of Gardening. London: MacMillan Press. ISBN 0-333-47494-5.
  12. ^ a b c d Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Tamarix spp. Archived 2021-03-20 at the Wayback Machine In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
  13. ^ "Coleophora asthenella". Plant Parasites of Europe. Archived from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  14. ^ a b c Di Tomaso, Joseph (1998). "Impact, Biology, and Ecology of Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the Southwestern United States". Weed Technology. 12 (2): 326–336. doi:10.1017/S0890037X00043906. S2CID 251573113.
  15. ^ Wolf, E. (June 6, 2016). "Science driving a new management strategy for Tamarix" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 28, 2021. Retrieved October 12, 2021.
  16. ^ Sher, Anna A.; Marshall, Diane L.; Gilbert, Steven A. (2000). "Competition between native Populus deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications of reestablishing flooding disturbance". Conservation Biology. 14 (6): 1744–1754. Bibcode:2000ConBi..14.1744S. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2000.99306.x. PMID 35701936.
  17. ^ Sher, A.A.; Marshall, D.L.; Taylor, J.P. (June 2002). "Establishment patterns of native Populus and Salix in the presence of invasive, non-native Tamarix". Ecological Applications. 12 (3): 760–772. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0760:eponpa]2.0.co;2.
  18. ^ Sher, A. A.; Marshall, D. L. (2003). "Competition between native and exotic floodplain tree species across water regimes and soil textures". American Journal of Botany. 90 (3): 413–422. doi:10.3732/ajb.90.3.413. PMID 21659134.
  19. ^ Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. (1995). "Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S". Ecological Monographs. 65 (3): 347–370. Bibcode:1995EcoM...65..347B. doi:10.2307/2937064. JSTOR 2937064.
  20. ^ Taylor, J.; McDaniel, K. (1998). "Restoration of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.)-infested floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge". Weed Technology. 12 (2): 345–352. doi:10.1017/S0890037X0004392X. S2CID 88903153.
  21. ^ Dewine, J. M.; Cooper, D. J. (April 2008). "Canopy shade and the successional replacement of tamarisk by native box elder". Journal of Applied Ecology. 45 (2): 505–514. Bibcode:2008JApEc..45..505D. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01440.x. ISSN 1365-2664.
  22. ^ Shafroth, Patrick; Stromberg, Juliet; Patten, Duncan (2000). "Woody riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes" (PDF). Western North American Naturalist. 60: 66–76. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-09-20. Retrieved 2021-03-30.
  23. ^ Merritt, David M.; Cooper, David J. (2000). "Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: A comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River Basin, USA". Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 16 (6): 543–564. doi:10.1002/1099-1646(200011/12)16:6<543::AID-RRR590>3.0.CO;2-N.
  24. ^ Horton, J. L.; Kolb, T. E.; Hart, S. C. (2001). "Responses of riparian trees to interannual variation in ground water depth in a semi-arid river basin". Plant, Cell and Environment. 24 (3): 293–304. Bibcode:2001PCEnv..24..293H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.208.6920. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00681.x.
  25. ^ Christensen, E. M. (1962). "The Rate of Naturalization of Tamarix in Utah". American Midland Naturalist. 68 (1): 51–57. doi:10.2307/2422635. JSTOR 2422635.
  26. ^ Stromberg, J. C. (1998). "Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and saltcedar (Tamarix chinesis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona". Journal of Arid Environments. 40 (2): 133–155. Bibcode:1998JArEn..40..133S. doi:10.1006/jare.1998.0438.
  27. ^ Zamora-Arroyo F, Nagler PL, Briggs M, Radtke D, et al. (2001). "Regeneration of native trees in response to flood releases from the United States into the delta of the Colorado River, Mexico". Journal of Arid Environments. 49 (1): 49–64. Bibcode:2001JArEn..49...49Z. doi:10.1006/jare.2001.0835.
  28. ^ Zavaleta, E. (December 2000). "The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub". Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment. 29 (8): 462–467. doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2000)029[0462:tevoca]2.0.co;2.
  29. ^ Morisette JT, Jarnevich CS, Ullah A, Cai W, et al. (2006). "A tamarisk habitat suitability map for the continental United States". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 4 (1): 11–17. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0012:ATHSMF]2.0.CO;2.
  30. ^ Lenhoff EA, Menalled FD (2013). "Impacts of Tamarix-mediated soil changes on restoration plant growth". Applied Vegetation Science. 16 (3): 438–447. Bibcode:2013AppVS..16..438L. doi:10.1111/avsc.12011.
  31. ^ Ohrtman, M. (2009). Quantifying soil and groundwater chemistry in areas invaded by Tamarix spp. along the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico (PhD dissertation). University of Denver. Archived from the original on 2021-10-22. Retrieved 2021-10-15.
  32. ^ Anderson, B. W. (1996). "Salt cedar, revegetation and riparian ecosystems in the Southwest". Proceedings of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, Symposium '95. California Exotic Pest Plant Council, Pacific Grove, California: 32–41..
  33. ^ Anderson, B. W. (1998). "The case for salt cedar". Restoration and Management Notes. 16: 130–134, 138.
  34. ^ Sala, Anna; Smith, Stanley D.; Devitt, Dale A. (August 1996). "Water Use by Tamarix ramosissima and Associated Phreatophytes in a Mojave Desert Floodplain". Ecological Applications. 6 (3): 888–898. Bibcode:1996EcoAp...6..888S. doi:10.2307/2269492. JSTOR 2269492.
  35. ^ Cooper, D.; Merritt, David M.; Andersen, Douglas C.; Chimner, Rodney A. (1999). "Factors Controlling the Establishment of Fremont Cottonwood Seedlings on the Upper Green River, USA". Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 15 (5): 419–440. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.208.7367. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199909/10)15:5<419::AID-RRR555>3.0.CO;2-Y.
  36. ^ Cooper, D.; Andersen, Douglas C.; Chimner, Rodney A. (2003). "Multiple pathways for woody plant establishment on floodplains at local to regional scales". Journal of Ecology. 91 (2): 182–196. Bibcode:2003JEcol..91..182C. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00766.x.
  37. ^ Everitt, B. L. (1980). "Ecology of saltcedar - a plea for research". Environmental Geology. 3 (2): 77–84. Bibcode:1980EnGeo...3...77E. doi:10.1007/BF02473474. S2CID 128624735.
  38. ^ Everitt, B. L. (1998). "Chronology of the spread of Tamarisk in the central Rio Grande". Wetlands. 18 (4): 658–668. Bibcode:1998Wetl...18..658E. doi:10.1007/BF03161680. S2CID 33405892.
  39. ^ Stromberg, J. C. (1998). "Functional equivalency of saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) along a free-flowing river". Wetlands. 18 (4): 675–686. Bibcode:1998Wetl...18..675S. doi:10.1007/BF03161682. S2CID 6443419.
  40. ^ a b Adams, Aaron (2021). "Treating Invasive Tamarisk as an Intern at San Andres National Wildlife Refuge" (PDF). The Geographical Bulletin. 62 (2): 101–103. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
  41. ^ "Our newest weed warriors" (PDF). Dinosaur National Monument, National Park Service (Press release). U.S. Department of the Interior. 8 January 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 March 2019. Retrieved 31 August 2009. — describes saltcedar controls, incl. 2006–2007 release of tamarisk beetles into Dinosaur National Monument.
  42. ^ Tracy, J.L.; Robbins, T.O. (2009). "Taxonomic revision and biogeography of the Tamarix-feeding Diorhabda elongata (Brullé, 1832) species group (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Galerucinae: Galerucini) and analysis of their potential in biological control of Tamarisk" (PDF). Zootaxa. 2101: 1–152. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.2101.1.1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-03-06. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
  43. ^ "Tamarisk Shrub". www.best4hedging.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2 June 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  44. ^ "Invasive Species Profile: Tamarisk". Channel Islands Restoration. 3 July 2018. Archived from the original on 2 June 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  45. ^ Everitt, Benjamin (1998). "Chronology of the spread of tamarisk in the central Rio Grande". Wetlands. 18 (4): 658–668. Bibcode:1998Wetl...18..658E. doi:10.1007/BF03161680. S2CID 33405892.
  46. ^ Sakelliou, Katerina. "Salt Cedar Salad - Horta". Katerina's Kouzina. Archived from the original on 12 January 2023. Retrieved 12 January 2023. Another such plant is the tamarix or salt cedar [...]. [...] The salt cedar is one of the wild edible greens – horta – that we eat in Greece.
  47. ^ Karpowicz, Adam; Selby, Stephen (2010). "Scythian Bow From Xinjang" (PDF). Journal of the Soc. Of Archer-Antiquaries. 53. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-05-18. Retrieved 2019-03-01. The materials used in the construction of the original bows have not been established, however. The wood could be tentatively identified as that of tamarisk, which is available abundantly in the region and is known to have been the material used to make bows in other periods.
  48. ^ Tamarix aphylla Archived 2009-02-15 at the Wayback Machine, in Ecocrop.
  49. ^ Abigail Klein Leichman (November 7, 2011). "Growing forests in the desert". israel21c.org. Archived from the original on November 10, 2011. Retrieved November 23, 2011.
  50. ^ Bodenheimer, F.S. (Feb 1947). "The Manna of Sinai". The Biblical Archaeologist. 10 (1): 2–6. doi:10.2307/3209227. JSTOR 3209227. S2CID 165249625. Archived from the original on 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2022-01-18.
  51. ^ Tree by Tree, China Rolls Back Deserts Archived 2015-05-17 at the Wayback Machine.
  52. ^ Taklamakan – Where Oil and Water Don't Mix Archived 2008-10-29 at the Wayback Machine - "A green belt of anti-desertification plant species such as Chinese tamarisk, honey tree and sacsaoul, was planted in 2003 all along the 466 km of the road's desert stretch to hold off the sands."
  53. ^ Johnson, Kirk (December 26, 2008). "War With Riverbank Invader, Waged by Muscle and Munching". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2008-12-27.
  54. ^ "Saltcedar_USDA National Agricultural Library". Archived from the original on 2019-08-21. Retrieved 2019-08-21.
  55. ^ Sharma, U., Kataria, V., & Shekhawat, N. S. (2017) Aeroponics for adventitious rhizogenesis in evergreen haloxeric tree Tamarix aphylla (L.) Karst.: influence of exogenous auxins and cutting type. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 24(1):167–174 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-017-0493-0 Archived 2023-03-02 at the Wayback Machine
  56. ^ Jiménez, Enrique (2017). The Babylonian disputation poems. Brill. pp. 23–28. ISBN 978-90-04-33625-4.
  57. ^ The KJV has the word "grove", but the NKJV has "tamarisk". The Hebrew word is different from that translated as "grove" elsewhere in the KJV Old Testament.
  58. ^ a b c Tyndale New Living Translation.[full citation needed]
  59. ^ "Wedgwood, Tamarisk". Replacements, Ltd. Archived from the original on 2 June 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2021.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Christensen, E. M. (1962). "The Rate of Naturalization of Tamarix in Utah". American Midland Naturalist. 68 (1): 51–57. doi:10.2307/2422635. JSTOR 2422635.
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tamarix.
Look up tamarix in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article "Tamarisk".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamarix&oldid=1263489878"