Salix caprea
Goat willow

Goat willow (Salix caprea) is a small, deciduous, dioecious tree species belonging to the Salicaceae family. It has oval leaves, unlike the long, thin leaves of many willow species. It is characterized by its distinctive catkin flowers, which appear earlier than the flowers of most other plants, attracting pollinators. Its native range is from southern Norway to eastern Spain, the British Isles, and western Asia. Goat willow is mostly pollinated by insects, but its seeds are dispersed by wind and water (Tokdemir, 2017). The species can propagate itself vegetatively from cuttings or by lowering its leaves to the ground and developing roots.

Goat willow has a high adaptive potential and thrives in a variety of habitats, including moist woodlands, riverbanks, swamps, hedgerows, and disturbed areas, preferring full sun near water sources; it is, however, susceptible to water saturated or acidic soils (Tokdemir et al., 2023). The species is a pioneer used for land reclamation and controlling erosion, but often gets outcompeted by other late successional tree species. Humans have utilized goat willow for centuries, coppicing it for its flexible branches, which are ideal for basket weaving, and as biomass for energy. The tree has ornamental value, often being used to create windbreaks or shelterbelts.

in situ genetic conservation unit
ex situ genetic conservation unit
Map elements
Download the distribution map
About map elements

To learn more about the map elements, please download the "Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of forest trees"

Acknowledgements

This distribution map has been developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (partly based on the EUFORGEN map) and released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)


Caudullo, G., Welk, E., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2017. Chorological maps for the main European woody species. Data in Brief 12, 662-666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.05.007

The following experts have contributed to the development of the EUFORGEN distribution maps:

Fazia Krouchi (Algeria), Hasmik Ghalachyan (Armenia), Thomas Geburek (Austria), Berthold Heinze (Austria), Rudi Litschauer (Austria), Rudolf Litschauer (Austria), Michael Mengl (Austria), Ferdinand Müller (Austria), Franz Starlinger (Austria), Valida Ali-zade (Azerbaijan), Vahid Djalal Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Karen Cox (Belgium), Bart De Cuyper (Belgium), Olivier Desteucq (Belgium), Patrick Mertens (Belgium), Jos Van Slycken (Belgium), An Vanden Broeck (Belgium), Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge (Belgium), Dalibor Ballian (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Alexander H. Alexandrov (Bulgaria), Alexander Delkov (Bulgaria), Ivanova Denitsa Pandeva (Bulgaria), Peter Zhelev Stoyanov (Bulgaria), Joso Gracan (Croatia), Marilena Idzojtic (Croatia), Mladen Ivankovic (Croatia), Željka Ivanović (Croatia), Davorin Kajba (Croatia), Hrvoje Marjanovic (Croatia), Sanja Peric (Croatia), Andreas Christou (Cyprus), Xenophon Hadjikyriacou (Cyprus), Václav Buriánek (Czech Republic), Jan Chládek (Czech Republic), Josef Frýdl (Czech Republic), Petr Novotný (Czech Republic), Martin Slovacek (Czech Republic), Zdenek Špišek (Czech Republic), Karel Vancura (Czech Republic), Ulrik Bräuner (Denmark), Bjerne Ditlevsen (Denmark), Jon Kehlet Hansen (Denmark), Jan Svejgaard Jensen (Denmark), Kalev Jðgiste (Estonia), Tiit Maaten (Estonia), Raul Pihu (Estonia), Ülo Tamm (Estonia), Arvo Tullus (Estonia), Aivo Vares (Estonia), Teijo Nikkanen (Finland), Sanna Paanukoski (Finland), Mari Rusanen (Finland), Pekka Vakkari (Finland), Leena Yrjänä (Finland), Daniel Cambon (France), Eric Collin (France), Alexis Ducousso (France), Bruno Fady (France), François Lefèvre (France), Brigitte Musch (France), Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio (France), Luc E. Pâques (France), Julien Saudubray (France), Marc Villar (France), Vlatko Andonovski (FYR Macedonia), Dragi Pop-Stojanov (FYR Macedonia), Merab Machavariani (Georgia), Irina Tvauri (Georgia), Alexander Urushadze (Georgia), Bernd Degen (Germany), Jochen Kleinschmit (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Volker Schneck (Germany), Richard Stephan (Germany), H. H. Kausch-Blecken Von Schmeling (Germany), Georg von Wühlisch (Germany), Iris Wagner (Germany), Heino Wolf (Germany), Paraskevi Alizoti (Greece), Filippos Aravanopoulos (Greece), Andreas Drouzas (Greece), Despina Paitaridou (Greece), Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou (Greece), Kostas Thanos (Greece), Sándor Bordács (Hungary), Csaba Mátyás (Hungary), László Nagy (Hungary), Thröstur Eysteinsson (Iceland), Adalsteinn Sigurgeirsson (Iceland), Halldór Sverrisson (Iceland), John Fennessy (Ireland), Ellen O'Connor (Ireland), Fulvio Ducci (Italy), Silvia Fineschi (Italy), Bartolomeo Schirone (Italy), Marco Cosimo Simeone (Italy), Giovanni Giuseppe Vendramin (Italy), Lorenzo Vietto (Italy), Janis Birgelis (Latvia), Virgilijus Baliuckas (Lithuania), Kestutis Cesnavicius (Lithuania), Darius Danusevicius (Lithuania), Valmantas Kundrotas (Lithuania), Alfas Pliûra (Lithuania), Darius Raudonius (Lithuania), Robert du Fays (Luxembourg), Myriam Heuertz (Luxembourg), Claude Parini (Luxembourg), Fred Trossen (Luxembourg), Frank Wolter (Luxembourg), Joseph Buhagiar (Malta), Eman Calleja (Malta), Ion Palancean (Moldova), Dragos Postolache (Moldova), Gheorghe Postolache (Moldova), Hassan Sbay (Morocco), Tor Myking (Norway), Tore Skrøppa (Norway), Anna Gugala (Poland), Jan Kowalczyk (Poland), Czeslaw Koziol (Poland), Jan Matras (Poland), Zbigniew Sobierajski (Poland), Maria Helena Almeida (Portugal), Filipe Costa e Silva (Portugal), Luís Reis (Portugal), Maria Carolina Varela (Portugal), Ioan Blada (Romania), Alexandru-Lucian Curtu (Romania), Lucian Dinca (Romania), Georgeta Mihai (Romania), Mihai Olaru (Romania), Gheorghe Parnuta (Romania), Natalia Demidova (Russian Federation), Mikhail V. Pridnya (Russian Federation), Andrey Prokazin (Russian Federation), Srdjan Bojovic (Serbia) , Vasilije Isajev (Serbia), Saša Orlovic (Serbia), Rudolf Bruchánik (Slovakia), Roman Longauer (Slovakia), Ladislav Paule (Slovakia), Gregor Bozič (Slovenia), Robert Brus (Slovenia), Katarina Celič (Slovenia), Hojka Kraigher (Slovenia), Andrej Verlič (Slovenia), Marjana Westergren (Slovenia), Ricardo Alía (Spain), Josefa Fernández-López (Spain), Luis Gil Sanchez (Spain), Pablo Gonzalez Goicoechea (Spain), Santiago C. González-Martínez (Spain), Sonia Martin Albertos (Spain), Eduardo Notivol Paino (Spain), María Arantxa Prada (Spain), Alvaro Soto de Viana (Spain), Lennart Ackzell (Sweden), Jonas Bergquist (Sweden), Sanna Black-Samuelsson (Sweden), Jonas Cedergren (Sweden), Gösta Eriksson (Sweden), Markus Bolliger (Switzerland), Felix Gugerli (Switzerland), Rolf Holderegger (Switzerland), Peter Rotach (Switzerland), Marcus Ulber (Switzerland), Sven M.G. de Vries (The Netherlands), Khouja Mohamed Larbi (Tunisia), Murat Alan (Turkey), Gaye Kandemir (Turkey), Gursel Karagöz (Turkey), Zeki Kaya (Turkey), Hasan Özer (Turkey), Hacer Semerci (Turkey), Ferit Toplu (Turkey), Mykola M. Vedmid (Ukraine), Roman T. Volosyanchuk (Ukraine), Stuart A'Hara (United Kingdom), Joan Cottrell (United Kingdom), Colin Edwards (United Kingdom), Michael Frankis (United Kingdom), Jason Hubert (United Kingdom), Karen Russell (United Kingdom), C.J.A. Samuel (United Kingdom).
 

Status of Salix caprea conservation in Europe

Genetic diversity and variation

Goat willow is highly polymorphic and has a moderate level of heterozygosity, showing a high degree of genetic variability and diversity (Tokdemir, 2017). Goat willow populations in Türkiye have moderate genetic diversity and moderate genetic differentiation, showing constant gene flow (Tokdemir et al., 2023). Populations in Ireland also show a high level of genetic diversity, with high allelic variation caused by high outcrossing rates, and moderate genetic differentiation between populations (Perdereau et al., 2014). However, as is typical within the willow species, differentiation is low because of high gene flow (Tokdemir, 2017). Up to 92.5 per cent of total genetic variation in goat willow is within populations, and the species has many genotypes (Perdereau et al., 2014; Tokdemir, 2017). Some inbreeding was found in Turkish populations, likely caused by small effective population sizes due to habitat fragmentation, which limits gene exchange and causes genetic drift (Tokdemir et al., 2023). However, the species is characterized by a naturally low-density distribution.

Genetic distribution and clustering

Turkish populations of goat willow can be separated into three genetic groups (Tokdemir et al., 2023). Some of these populations are geographically close but separated by mountains, showing isolation and mountain ranges affect the distribution and genetic diversity pattern of the species; however, geographically close populations are typically genetically similar (Tokdemir, 2017). Populations in Ireland also showed an absence of population geographic structure, possibly indicating the existence of one largely continuous population throughout the island (Perdereau et al., 2014). At the European scale there is no phylogeographic structure within goat willow (Perdereau et al., 2014). However, even rare haplotypes are widely distributed because of the high dispersal rate of the (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003).

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

Interspecific taxa dynamics

Goat willow is highly cross-compatible, so hybrids occur naturally as well as in cultivation (Tokdemir, 2017). The presence of shared haplotypes between goat willow and other willow species, such as grey willow (Salix cinerea), eared willow (Salix aurita), purple willow (Salix purpurea), and large grey willow (Salix atrocinerea), shows hybridization between these species has occurred (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003). Hybrids between goat willow and grey willow are common in Ireland (Perdereau et al., 2014). The large number of shared haplotypes between these willow species makes it difficult to identify the origin of haplotypes in the species, but it is safe to assume many of the haplotypes in goat willow have their origin in other species (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003). High hybridization and mutation rates result in the repeated transfer of genes and high levels of genetic variation and may be why there is no observed phylogeographic structure in European goat willow populations (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003).

Glacial biogeography evolution

Specific willow species cannot be identified from the fossil pollen record as they are very similar to each other. This makes identifying the glacial refugia of goat willow very difficult (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003). However, the lack of phylogeographic structure in goat willow suggests the species recolonized Europe very quickly after the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age because it can be wind pollinated and the seed dispersed by wind and water (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003). However, goat willow shows greater genetic diversity in northern populations than in southern populations, which is the opposite of what would be expected from a species that spread northwards from southern refugia after the last glacial maximum. This suggests that there were refugia of goat willow outside southern regions (Palmé, Semerikov and Lascoux, 2003).

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

Goat willow is threatened by habitat destruction, climate change, and the introduction of non-native species, which can lead to genetic homogenization and reduced adaptive potential. Many goat willow populations are found along riversides, making them vulnerable to planned dam construction, such as in Türkiye, where dam construction has already fragmented many populations (Tokdemir, 2017; Tokdemir et al., 2023). Therefore, goat willow may be at risk of losing genetic diversity or going locally extinct in regions with lots of planned dam/hydroelectric construction (Tokdemir, 2017). Conservation programmes to protect remaining natural populations and restore genetic resources must consider habitat fragmentation in goat willow (Tokdemir et al., 2023). Sustainable management practices, habitat restoration, and public awareness are essential components of ongoing efforts to secure the genetic diversity of goat willow.

 

The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.

Genetic Characterisation of Salix caprea and its GCUs

Availability of FRM

FOREMATIS

Contacts of experts

NA

Further reading

Hjältén, J. 1998. An experimental test of hybrid resistance to insects and pathogens using Salix caprea, S. repens and their F1 hybrids. Oecologia, 117: 127–132.

Puschenreiter, M., Türktaş, M., Sommer, P., Wieshammer, G., Laaha, G., Wenzel, W.W. and Hauser, M.T. 2010. Differentiation of metallicolous and non‐metallicolous Salix caprea populations based on phenotypic characteristics and nuclear microsatellite (SSR) markers. Plant, Cell & Environment, 33(10): 1641–1655.

References

Palmé, A.E., Semerikov, V. and Lascoux, M. 2003. Absence of geographical structure of chloroplast DNA variation in sallow, Salix caprea L. Heredity, 91(5): 465–474.

Perdereau, A.C., Kelleher, C.T., Douglas, G.C. and Hodkinson, T.R. 2014. High levels of gene flow and genetic diversity in Irish populations of Salix caprea L. inferred from chloroplast and nuclear SSR markers. BMC Plant Biology, 14(1): 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-014-0202-x

Tokdemir, Y. 2017. Determination of genetic diversity in Salix caprea populations from the Coruh river watershed. Master of Science thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Türkiye.

Tokdemir, Y., Değirmenci, F.Ö., Uluğ, A., Acar, P. and Kaya, Z. 2023. Genetic diversity structure of Salix caprea L. populations from fragmented riparian habitats. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2816148/v1