Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 371, Issue 1–2, pp 655–672 | Cite as

Phreatophytes under stress: transpiration and stomatal conductance of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in a high-salinity environment

  • Edward P. Glenn
  • Pamela L. Nagler
  • Kiyomi Morino
  • Kevin R. Hultine
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

We sought to understand the environmental constraints on an arid-zone riparian phreatophtye, saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima and related species and hybrids), growing over a brackish aquifer along the Colorado River in the western U.S. Depth to groundwater, meteorological factors, salinity and soil hydraulic properties were compared at stress and non-stressed sites that differed in salinity of the aquifer, soil properties and water use characteristics, to identify the factors depressing water use at the stress site.

Methods

Saltcedar leaf-level transpiration (EL), LAI, and stomatal conductance (GS) were measured over a growing season (June–September) with Granier and stem heat balance sensors and were compared to those for saltcedar at the non-stress site determined in a previous study. Transpiration on a ground-area basis (EG) was calculated as EL × LAI. Environmental factors were regressed against hourly and daily EL and GS at each site to determine the main factors controlling water use at each site.

Results

At the stress site, mean EG over the summer was only 30 % of potential evapotranspiration (ETo). GS and EG peaked between 8 and 9 am then decreased over the daylight hours. Daytime GS was negatively correlated with vapor pressure deficit (VPD) (P < 0.05). By contrast, EG at the non-stress site tracked the daily radiation curve, was positively correlated with VPD and was nearly equal to ETo on a daily basis. Depth to groundwater increased over the growing season at both sites and resulted in decreasing EG but could not explain the difference between sites. Both sites had high soil moisture levels throughout the vadose zone with high calculated unsaturated conductivity. However, salinity in the aquifer and vadose zone was three times higher at the stress site than at the non-stress site and could explain differences in plant EG and GS.

Conclusions

Salts accumulated in the vadose zone at both sites so usable water was confined to the saturated capillary fringe above the aquifer. Existence of a saline aquifer imposes several types of constraints on phreatophyte EG, which need to be considered in models of plant water uptake. The heterogeneous nature of saltcedar EG over river terraces introduces potential errors into estimates of ET by wide-area methods.

Keywords

Saltcedar Tamarisk Arid zone Riparian Invasive species Remote sensing of evapotranspiration 

References

  1. Allen RG, Pereira L, Rais D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira L, Howell TA, Jensen M (2011) Evapotranspiration information report: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy. Agric Water Manag 98:899–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armas C, Padilla FM, Pugnaire FI, Jackson RB (2009) Hydrualic lift and tolerance to salinity of semiarid species: consequences for species interactions. Oecologia 162:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AZMET (2013) The Arizona Meteorological Network. http://cals.arizona.edu/azmet/
  5. Bastiaanssen WGM, Noordman EJM, Pelgrum H, Davids G, Thoreson BP, Allen RG (2005) SEBAL model with remotely sensed data to improve water-resources management under actual field conditions. J Irrig Drain Eng 131:85–93Google Scholar
  6. Bazihizina N, Barrett-Lennard EG, Colmer TD (2012) Plant growth and physiology under heterogeneouis salinity. Plant Soil 354:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler JJ, Kluitenberg GJ, Whittemore DO, Loheide SP, Jin W, Billenger MA, Zhan X (2007) A field investigation of phreatophyte-induced flucuations in the water table. Water Resour Res 43: doi: 10.1029/2005WR004627
  8. Cavanaugh M (2009) Evapotranspiration partitioning in semiarid creosote dominated ecosystems: climate change implications of soil moisture control on shrubland transpiration. Master’s Thesis, University of Arizona (http://cals.arizona.edu/research/papuga/docs/MichelleThesis.pdf)
  9. Chatterjee S (2010) Estimating evapotranspiration using remote sensing: a hybrid approach between MODIS derived Enhanced Vegetation Index, Bowen Ration System, and ground based micro-meteorological data. Doctoral Dissertation, Wright State University, OhioGoogle Scholar
  10. Clearwater MJ, Meinzer FC, Abbadie L, Andrade JL, Goldstein G, Holbrook NM (1999) Potential errors in measurement of nonuniform sap flow using heat dissipation probes. Tree Physiol 19:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleverly JR, Dahm CN, Thibault JR, Gilroy DJ, Coonrod JAE (2002) Seasonal estimates of actual evapotranspiration from Tamarix ramosissima stands using three-dimensional eddy covariance. J Arid Environ 52:181–197Google Scholar
  12. Danham CA, Froend RH, Stock WD (2009) Water stress vulnerability of four Banksia species in contrasting ecohydrological habitats on the Gnangara Mound, Western Australia. Plant Cell Environ 32:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. das Neves JPC, Correia JP, Ferreira LFP, Portugal LF, Vaz MM, Gazarini LC (2008) Gas exchange in the salt marsh species Atriplex portulacoides L. and Limoniastrum monopetalum L. in Southern Portugal. Acta Physiol Plant 30:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson TE, Burgess SSO, Tu KP, Loveira RS, Santiago LS, Fisher JB, Simonin KA, Ambrose AR (2007) Nighttime transpiration in woody plants from contrasting ecosystems. Tree Physiol 27:561–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study Team (2012) Technical memorandum C—Quantificiation of water demand scenarios. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/TechMemoC/TMCreport.pdf
  16. Devitt DA, Piorkowski JM, Smith SD, Cleverly JR, Sala A (1996) Plant water relations of Tamarix ramosissima in response to the imposition and alleviation of soil moisture stress. J Arid Environ 36:527–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Tomaso J (1998) Impact, biology, and ecology of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the southwestern United States. Weed Technol 12:326–336Google Scholar
  18. Drabsch J, Parnell K, Hume T, Dolphin T (1999) The capillary fringe and the water table in an intertidal estuarine sand flat. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 48:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellsworth PZ, Williams DG (2007) Hydrogen isotope fractionation during water uptake by woody xerophytes. Plant Soil 291:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewers B, Oren R (2000) Analyses of assumptions and errors in the calculation of stomatal conductance from sap flux measurements. Tree Physiol 20:579–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewers B, Oren R, Kimp HS, Bohrer G, Lai CT (2007) Effect of hydraulic architecture and spatial variation in light on mean stomatal conductance of tree branches and crowns. Plant Cell Environ 30:483–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaskin J, Schaal B (2002) Hybrid Tamarix widespread in US invasion and undetected in native Asian range. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:11256–11259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gazal RM, Scott RL, Goodrich DC, Williams DG (2006) Controls on transpiration in a semiarid riparian cottonwood forest. Agric For Meteorol 137:56–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geli H (2012) Modeling spatial surface energy fluxes of agricultural and riparian vegetation using remote sensing. Master’s thesis, Utah State University. Available on-line at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
  25. Gillham RW (1984) The effect of the capillary fringe on the water-table response. J Hydrol 67:307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenn E, Tanner R, Mendez S, Kehret T, Moore D, Garcia J, Valdes C (1998) Growth rates, salt tolerance and water use characteristics of native and invasive riparian plants from the delta of the Colorado River delta, Mexico. J Arid Environ 40:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glenn E, Huete A, Nagler P, Hirschboek K, Brown P (2007) Integrating remote sensing and ground methods to estimate evapotranspiration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 26:139–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glenn EP, Neale CMU, Hunsaker DJ, Nagler PL (2011) Vegetation index-based crop coefficients to estimate evapotranspiration by remote sensing in agriculture and natural ecosystems. Hydrol Process 25:4050–4062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glenn EP, Morino K, Nagler PL, Murray RS, Pearlstein S, Hultine KR (2012) Roles of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and capillary rise in salinizing a non-flooding terrace on a flow-regulated desert river. J Arid Environ 79:56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gonzalez-Altozano P, Pavel EW, Onciss JA, Dolta J, Cohen M, Paco T, Massai R, Castel JR (2008) Comparative assessment of five methods of determining sap flow in peach trees. Agric Water Manag 95:503–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Granier A (1987) Evaluation of transpiration in a Douglas fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiol 3:309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Granier A, Biron P, Breda N, Pontallier JY, Saugier B (1996) Transpiration of trees and forest stands: short and long-term monitoring using sapflow methods. Glob Chang Biol 2:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grime V, Sinclair F (1999) Sources of error in stem heat balance sap flow measurements. Agric For Meteorol 94:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Groeneveld DP, Baugh WM, Sanderson JS, Cooper DJ (2007) Annual groundwater evapotranspiration mapped from single satellite scenes. J Hydrol 344:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hacke UG, Sperry JS, Ewers BE, Ellsworth DS, Schaffer KVR, Oren R (2000) Influence of soil porosity on water use in Pinus taeda. Oecologia 124:495–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horton J, Kolb T, Hart S (2001a) Physiological response to groundwater depth varies among species and with river flow regulation. Ecol Appl 11:1046–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Horton J, Kolb T, Hart S (2001b) Responses of riparian trees to interannual variation in ground water depth in a semi-arid river basin. Plant Cell Environ 24:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huete A, Didan K, van Leeuwen W, Miura T, Glenn E (2011) MODIS vegetation indices. Land Remote Sens Environ Chang 11:579–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hultine KR, Cable WL, Burgess SSO, Williams DG (2003a) Hydraulic redistribution by deep roots of a Chihuahuan Desert phreatophytes. Tree Physiol 23:353–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hultine KR, Williams DG, Burgess SSO, Keefer TO (2003b) Contrasting patterns of hydraulic redistribution in three desert phreatophytes. Oecologia 135:167–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Hultine KR, Koepke DF, Pockman WT, Fravolini A, Sperry JS, Williams DG (2006) Influence of soil texture on hydraulic properties and water relations of a dominant warm-desert phreatophyte. Tree Physiol 26:313–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hultine KR, Nagler PL, Morino K, Bush SE, Burtch KG, Dennison PE, Glenn EP, Ehleringer JR (2010) Sap flux-scaled transpiration by tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) before, during and after episodic defoliation by the saltcedar leaf beetle (Diorhabda carinulata). Agric For Meteorol 150:1467–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1992) Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jolly I, McEwan K, Holland K (2008) A review of groundwater–surface water interactions in arid/semi-arid wetlands and the consequences for wetland ecology. Ecohydrology 1:43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalma JD, McVicar TR, McCabe MF (2008) Estimating land surface evaporation: a review of methods using remotely sensed surface temperature data. Surv Geophys 29:421–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kjelgaard J, Stockle C, Black R, Campbell G (1997) Measuring sap flow with the heat balance approach using constant and variable heat inputs. Agric For Meteorol 85:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kostner BMM, Schulze ED, Kalliber FM, Hollinger DY, Byers JN (1992) Transpiration and canopy conductance in a broadleaved forest of Nothofagus—an analysis of xylem sap flow and eddy-correlation measurements. Oecologa 91:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kostner B, Granier A, Cermak J (1998) Sapflow measurements in forest stands: methods and uncertainties. Ann For Sci 55:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuo J (1999) Practical design calculations for groundwater and soil remediation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  50. Lundblad M, Lagergren F, Lindroth A (2001) Evaluation of heat balance and heat dissipation methods for sapflow measurements in pine and spruce. Ann For Sci 58:625–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mata-Gonzalez R, McLendon T, Martin DW (2005) The inappropriate use of crop transpiration coefficients (Kc) to estimate evapotranspiration in arid ecosystems: a review. Arid Land Res Manag 19:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mathi AM, Welborn TL, Susong DD, Tumbusch ML (2011) Phreatopphyte land cover map of the northern and central Great Basin ecoregion: California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reson, VA http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3169/sim3169_pamphlet.pdf
  53. McLendon T, Hubbard PJ, Martin DW (2008) Partitioning the use of precipitation- and groundwater-derived moisture by vegetation in an arid ecosystem in California. J Arid Environ 72:986–1001Google Scholar
  54. Meinzer OE (1927) Plants as indicators of groundwater. USGS Water Supply Paper 577, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  55. Monteith J, Unsworth M (1990) Principles of environmental physics, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore G, Cleverly J, Owens M (2008) Nocturnal transpiration in riparian Tamarix thickets authenticated by sap flux, eddy covariance and leaf gas exchange measurements. Tree Physiol 28:521–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nagler PL, Glenn EP, Didan K, Osterberg J, Jordan F, 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 16:136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nagler PL, Morino K, Didan K, Erker J, Osterberg J, Hultine KR, Glenn EP (2009a) Wide-area estimates of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) evapotranspiration on the lower Colorado River measured by heat balance and remote sensing methods. Ecohydrol 2:18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nagler PL, Morino K, Murray RS, Osterberg J, Glenn EP (2009b) An empirical algorithm for estimating agricultural and riparian evapotranspiration using MODIS Enhanced Vegetation Index and ground measurements of ET. I. Description of method. Remote Sens 1:1273–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nagler PL, Glenn EP, Jarnevich CS, Shafroth PB (2011) Distribution and abundance of saltcedar and Russian olive in the western United States. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:508–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Naidoo G, Vonwillert D (1995) Diurnal gas-exchange characteristics and water-use efficiency of 3 salt-secreting mangroves at low and high salinities. Hydrobiology 295:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Naithani KJ, Ewers BE, Pendall E (2012) Sap flux-scaled transpiration and stomatal conductance response to soil and atmospheric drought in a semi-arid sagebrush ecosystem. J Hydrol 464:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Naumburg F, Mata-Gonzalez R, Hunter RG, Mclendon T, Martin DW (2005) Phreatophytic vegetation and groundwater fluctuations: a review of current research and application of ecosystem response modeling with an emphasis on Great Basin vegetation. Environ Manag 35:726–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Newman BD, Wilcox BP, Archer SR, Breshears DD, Dahm CN, Duffy CJ, Phillips FM, Scanlon BR, Vivoni ER (2006) Ecohydrology of water-limited environments. A scientific vision. Water Resour Res 42, W06302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nichols WD (1993) Estimating discharge of shallow groundwater by transpiration from geasewood in the Northern Great Basin. Water Resour Res 29:2771–2778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nichols WE (1994) Groundwater discharge by phreatophyte shrubs in the Great Basin as related to depth to groundwater. Water Resour Res 30:3265–3274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nippert JB, Butler JJ, Kluitenberg GJ, Whittemore DO, Arnold D, Spal SE, Ward JK (2010) Patterns of Tamarix water use during a record drought. Oecologia 162:283–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Norman JM, Kustas WP, Humes KS (1995) A two-source approach for estimating soil and vegetation energy fluxes from observations of directional radiometric surface temperature. Agr Forest Meteorol 77:263–293Google Scholar
  69. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (ORNL, DAAC) (2013) MODIS subsetted land products. Collection 5, available on-line (http://www.daac.ornl/MODIS/modis.html)
  70. Ogle K, Reynolds JF (2002) Desert dogma revisited: coupling of stomatal conductance and photosynthesis in the desert shrub, Larrea tridentate. Plant Cell Environ 25:909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Oishi CA, Oren R, Stoy PC (2008) Estimating components of forest evapotranspiration: a footprint approach for scaling sap flux measurements. Agric For Meteorol 148:1719–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Or D, Groeneveld DP (1994) Stochastic estimation of plant-available soil-water under fluctuating water-table depths. J Hydrol 163:43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Orellana F, Verma P, Loheide SP, Daly E (2012) Monitoring and modeling water-vegetation interactions in groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Rev Geophys 50, RG3003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Osmond B, Borkman O, Anderson DJ (1980) Physiological processes in plant ecology: towards a synthesis with Atriplex. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pataki D, Bush S, Gardner P, Solomon D, Ehleringer J (2005) Ecohydrology in a Colorado River riparian forest: implications for the decline of Populus fremontii. Ecol Appl 15:1009–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ridolfi L, D’Ordorico P, Laio F (2007) Vegetation dynamics induced by phreatophyte-aquifer interactions. J Theor Biol 248:301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sala A, Smith S, Devitt D (1996) Water use by Tamarix ramosissima and associated phreatophytes in a Mojave Desert floodplain. Ecol Appl 6:888–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saxton KE, Rawls WJ (2006) Soil water characteristics estimated by soil texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1569–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Scott RL, Cable WL, Huxman TE, Nagler PL, Hernandez M, Goodrich DC (2006) Multiyear riparian evapotranspiration and groundwater use for a semiarid watershed. J Arid Environ 72:1232–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scott RL, Cable WL, Hultine KR (2008) The ecohydrologic significance of hydraulic redistribution in a semiarid savanna. Water Resour Res 44, W02440Google Scholar
  81. Shafroth PB, Briggs MK (2008) Restoration ecology and invasive riparian plants: an introduction to the special issue section on Tamarix spp. in western North America 2008. Restor Ecol 16:94–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shah SHH, Vervoort RW, Suweis S, Guswa AJ, Rinaldo A, van der Zee SEATM (2011) Stochastic modeling of salt accumulation in the root zone due to capillary flux from brackish groundwater. Water Resour Res 47: doi: 10.1029/2010WR009790.
  83. Shreve F, Wiggins I (1964) Vegetation and flora of the Sonoran Desert. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  84. Snyder KA, Williams DG (2000) Water sources used by riparian trees varies among stream types on the San Pedro River, Arizona. Agric For Meteorol 105:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sperry JS (2000) Hydraulic constraints on plant gas exchange. Agric For Meteorol 104:13–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sperry JS, Hacke UG (2002) Desert shrub water relations with respect to soil characteristics and plant functional type. Funct Ecol 16:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sperry J, Adler F, Campbell G, Comstock J (1998) Limitation of plant water use by rhizosphere and xylem conductance: results from a model. Plant Cell Environ 21:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Steinwand AL, Harrington RF, Groeneveld DP (2001) Transpiration coefficients for three Great Basin shrubs. J Arid Environ 49:555–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Taghvaeian S (2011) Water and energy balance of a riparian and agricultural ecosystem along the Lower Colorado River. Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, UtahGoogle Scholar
  90. Taghvaeian S, Neale CMU (2011) Water balance of irrigated areas: a remote sensing approach. Hydrol Processes 25:4132–4141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Takemura T, Hnagata N, Sugihara K, Baba S, Karube I, Dubinsky Z (2000) Physiological and biochemical responses to salt stress in the mangrove, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza. Aquat Bot 68:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Van Niel TG, McVicar TR, Roderick ML, van Dijk AIJM, Renzuillo LJ, van Gorsel E (2011) Correcting for systematic error in satellite-derived latent heat flux due to assumptions in temporal scaling: assessment from flux tower observations. J Hydrol 409:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Webb WL, Lauenroth WK, Szarek SR, Kinerson RS (1983) Primary production and abiotic controls in forests, grasslands and desert ecosystems in the United States. Ecol 64:134–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Xu D, Shen Y (2005) External and internal factors responsible for midday depression of photosynthesis. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of photosynthesis, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, pp 297–298Google Scholar
  95. Zavaleta E (2000) The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio 29:462–467Google Scholar
  96. Zhu J, Young M, Healey J, Jasoni R, Osterberg J (2011) Interference of river level changes on riparian zone evapotranspiration estimates from diurnal groundwater level fluctuations. J Hydrol 403:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward P. Glenn
    • 1
  • Pamela L. Nagler
    • 2
  • Kiyomi Morino
    • 3
  • Kevin R. Hultine
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Research Laboratory, Department of Soil, Water and Environmental ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Sonoran Desert Research Station, Southwest Biological Science CenterUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory of Tree Ring ResearchUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Desert Botanical GardenPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations