|
Wildlife, Animals, and Plants
|
|
Introductory
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
ABBREVIATION :
PROVEL
SYNONYMS :
Prosopis juliflora var. velutina
Prosopis chilensis var. velutina
SCS PLANT CODE :
POVE
COMMON NAMES :
velvet mesquite
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name of velvet mesquite is Prosopis
velutina Woot.(Fabaceae). There are no infrataxa [17,18,28,61,65,125].
Inter- and intraspecific hybridization within mesquites (Prosopis spp.)
is common. Many intermediate forms exist, making identification
difficult at the specific or varietal level. Before settlement of the
Southwest by Europeans, speceis were separated by geographic barriers.
With the introduction of livestock, mesquites have spread, and now have
a more or less continuous distribution across the Southwest, which
allows for increased hybridization [65].
The ranges of velvet mesquite and western honey mesquite (P. glandulosa
var. torreyana) overlap in western Arizona [56] and hybrids are common
[6]. Plants in the vicinity of Guaymas, Sonora, and La Pas, Baja
California combine characteristics of velvet mesquite, western honey
mesquite, and honey mesquite (P. glandulosa var. glandulosa) [65].
LIFE FORM :
Tree, Shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
NO-ENTRY
COMPILED BY AND DATE :
Ronald Uchytil/June 1990
LAST REVISED BY AND DATE :
NO-ENTRY
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Uchytil, Ronald J. 1990. Prosopis velutina. In: Remainder of Citation
DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
The main distribution of velvet mesquite is confined to central and
southern Arizona, extreme southwestern New Mexico, and adjacent northern
Mexico [56,73]. The eastern boundary of its range is near the
Continental Divide in southern New Mexico [115]. The Continental Divide
forms a natural boundary between populations of velvet mesquite and
honey mesquite (var. uncertain) [115]. In California, velvet mesquite
is represented by only a few individuals that occur in Imperial,
Riverside, and Kern counties [57]. This population is believed to be
from human introductions. A small, isolated population occurs in the
Rio Grande Valley, near El Paso, Texas [65], that is also thought to be
introduced.
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES40 Desert grasslands
STATES :
AZ CA NM TX
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS :
CAGR FOBO ORPI SAGU
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
7 Lower Basin and Range
12 Colorado Plateau
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K027 Mesquite bosque
K031 Oak - juniper woodland
K033 Chaparral
K042 Creosote bush - bursage
K043 Palo verde - cactus shrub
K044 Creosote bush - tarbush
K046 Desert: vegetation largely lacking
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
SAF COVER TYPES :
235 Cottonwood - willow
239 Pinyon - juniper
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Velvet mesquite occurs in low elevation vegetation types, including
paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum)-bursage (Franseria deltoidea) cacti
(Opuntia spp.), desert grasslands, oak woodlands, and pinyon-juniper
(Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.) woodlands [55]. In desert grasslands, it
may be found in high enough densities to form "brushy ranges", but in
the other vegetation types it is generally found as scattered
individuals. Along major water coarses and their tributaries, however,
deciduous woodlands or "bosques" are often dominated by velvet mesquite.
Shrubby associates in desert grasslands include viscid acacia (Acacia
vernicosa), whitethorn acacia (A. constricta), catclaw acacia (A.
greggii), graythorn Condalia lycoides), ironwood (Olneya tesota),
burroweed (Haplopappus tenuisectus), hackberries (Celtis spp.), tarbush
(Flourensia cernua), and paloverde [15,30,55]. In drainage basins,
velvet mesquite often occurs in relatively pure stands of tobosa grass
(Hilaria mutica). On heavy-textured upland soils, velvet mesquite
occurs in pure stands of tobosa or sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) [30].
Velvet mesquite is often interspersed in low elevation oak woodlands
dominated by Emory oak Quercus emoryi), Mexican blue oak (Q.
oblongifolia) and Arizona white oak (Q. arizonica) [55].
Mesquite bosques were typically open and parklike. Velvet mesquite
often forms nearly pure stands in these riparian situations but may also
be interspersed with other trees and shrubs such as netleaf hackberry
(Celtis reticulata), wolfberry (Lycium spp.), Mexican elder (Sambucus
mexicana), Southwestern condalia (Condalia obovata), and fourwing
saltbush (Atriplex canescens) [30,87,93]. The understory was
historically dominated by vine mesquite grass (Panicum obtusum),
careless weed (Amaranthus palmeri), and in saline areas, by saltbushes
(Atriplex spp.). Today, because of grazing and other disturbances, many
bosques have been invaded by introduced grasses and forbs, including
cutleaf filaree (Erodium cicutarium), mustard (Sisymbrium irio), red
brome (Bromus rubens), and schismus (Schismus barbatus) [86].
VALUE AND USE
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
WOOD PRODUCTS VALUE :
The chief use of velvet mesquite wood is for firewood. Mesquite
(Prosopis spp.) wood is easily sawed and split, is dry and heavy,
ignites readily, and produces intense heat [54]. During the settlement
of southern Arizona, velvet mesquite provided dimension lumber for
buildings and bridges, walls for corrals, fence posts, tombstones, and
fuel for domestic and industrial uses [92,93]. During the 1880's many
velvet mesquite bosques were clearcut to obtain wood for these purposes.
The wood is still used locally for fence posts and lumber. In recent
years, mesquites have been increasingly used to produce charcoal
briquets [35].
IMPORTANCE TO LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE :
Livestock: Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, hogs, mules, and burros eat
large quantities of ripe velve mesquite fruit when available [29].
Livestock often remove the fruits as high on the tree as they can reach
and eat fallen pods lying on the ground [3,51]. Livestock do not
consume the foliage to any great extent [80]. Foliage consumption by
livestock is greatest during drought years, especially in the early
spring when other forage is lacking [29,49]. Most livestock consume
mesquite (Prosopis spp.) flowers when available [80]. In some areas of
Mexico, mesquite beans are collected, ground, and fed to cattle [31].
Wildlife: Velvet mesquite annually provides an abundant and nutritious
food source for numerous wildlife species when the pods ripen between
June and late October [51,71]. The beans and seeds form an important
part of the diet of mice, kangaroo rats, woodrats, chipmunks, ground
squirrels, rock squirrels, cottontail rabbits, skunks, quail, doves,
ravens, jackrabbits, the racoon, coyote, collared peccary, white-tailed
deer, mule deer, wild turkey, and mallard [2,9,29,51,52,101,105,122].
Many species of small rodents derive a large portion of their diet from
velvet mesquite seeds. These animals frequently store seeds and whole
beans in dens or caches [51]. Many species of birds eat flower buds and
young inflorescences of velvet mesquite. Insectivorous birds feed on
the numerous insects that are attracted to velvet mesquite flowers
[113]. Many species of quail eat mesquite buds and flowers in the
spring, and seeds during the fall and winter [122]. Mesquite seeds
often comprise 10 to 25 percent of the diet of Gambel's and scaled
quails [31]. Collared peccaries in Arizona feed heavily on velvet
mesquite beans from July to September [34]. In south-central Arizona,
velvet mesquite fruits comprised 9 percent of the white-tailed deer's
and 29 percent of the mule deer's summer diet, but use of any velvet
mesquite parts during the rest of the year was minimal [82]. A study in
semidesert grass-shrub habitats of southern Arizona found mule deer use
of velvet mesquite to vary seasonally. Velvet mesquite leaves comprised
0.3 percent of the mule deer's diet during the spring, 2.9 percent
during the autumn, and 4.9 percent during the winter, while fruits
comprised 24.0 percent of the mule deer's summer diet [110].
Mesquite browse is generally not a very important wildlife food source.
The wild turkey, ground squirrels, cottontails, and woodrats consume
some leaves [9,52]. Jackrabbits often consume large amounts of mesquite
and may crop leaves, buds, and bark as high as they can reach [124].
Velvet mesquite seedlings up to about 2 years old are often eaten by
jackrabbits and cottontails. Kangaroo rats frequently eat recently
germinated velvet mesquite seedlings [51]. Locally, mule deer consume
large quantities of mesquite foliage, but this may reflect a scarcity of
other browse rather than a preference for mesquite [109].
PALATABILITY :
The sweet, nutritious seed pods of velvet mesquite are highly palatable
to all classes of livestock and to numerous small and large wildlife
species. For both livestock and wildlife, the palatability of leaves
and twigs is relatively low. Livestock browse small amounts of leaves
and twigs as they green up in the spring, but velvet mesquite browse is
otherwise seldom eaten [29]. Leaf consumption may increase during
drought years when other forage is lacking, or following a killing frost
in the fall [49].
NUTRITIONAL VALUE :
Velvet mesquite's fruits are nutritious. The thick and spongy pericarp
is high in sugars and the seeds contain large amounts of protein.
Fruits also supply a good source of minerals for herbivores. Because
plants fix nitrogen, the leaves are high in protein.
Nutritional information concerning velvet mesquite fruit is presented
below [4]:
% N % crude % fat % fiber % ash % total
protein sugars
seed 5.13 29.44 5.68 7.12 3.83 ----
pericarp 1.13 6.88 2.24 23.48 5.52 31.6
whole pod 1.95 11.81 2.36 22.61 4.83 22.2
The mineral composition of velvet mesquite fruit is as follows [4]:
% Ca % Mg % Na % K ppm Cu ppm Zn ppm Mn ppm Fe
seed .26 .18 .06 .68 13.6 49.6 24.2 46.6
pericarp .63 .09 .04 1.16 6.4 9.6 11.6 48.8
whole pods .53 .09 .03 1.27 8.3 26.4 14.5 40.4
Nutritional information concerning velvet mesquite leaves and fruits
collected in southern Arizona is presented below [110]:
season % protein % K P/Ca ratio % In Vitro
collected digestibility
leaves spring 17.6 .23 .28 62.3
fruit summer 9.5 .16 .23 66.5
leaves autumn 16.4 .10 .05 44.8
leaves winter 15.8 .10 .05 44.9
COVER VALUE :
Velvet mesquite provides needed security cover for large wildlife
species. Its invasion into grasslands has benefited brush dependent
wildlife species such as the collared peccary and mule deer [2,15].
Southern Arizona studies indicate that velvet-mesquite-dominated
vegetation types are a preferred habitat of desert mule deer, but that
white-tailed deer seldom use velvet mesquite habitats [2,108]. Small
mammals such as antelope jackrabbits, woodrats, and kangaroo rats are
often found in brushy velvet mesquite habitats. A southern Arizona
study found that 99 percent of available velvet mesquite shrubs housed
Merriam kangaroo rat dens [103]. In fact, many species of rodents place
their burrows under the protection of velvet mesquite plants [76].
Found in desert environments, velvet mesquite provides shade for
livestock and wildlife. Jackrabbits often use the shade that mesquites
provide to help regulate their heat balance [76].
Brushy velvet mesquite ranges provide excellent habitat for the
zebra-tailed lizard, desert spiny lizard, western whiptail, and tree
lizards. The desert spiny lizard and tree lizards are primarily
arboreal and are often found in mesquite trees. Tree lizards may
aggregate in large numbers in the winter, using the underside of
protruding velvet mesquite bark as hibernating sites [47].
Velvet mesquite riparian communities provide important habitat for
numerous nesting bird species during both summer and winter. Along the
lower Verde River floodplain in Arizona, 19 species and 244 pairs of
breeding birds per 100 acres (40 ha) were found in a velvet mesquite bosque
community [117]. In another velvet mesquite bosque community in
southern Arizona, 476 pairs of nesting birds were found per 100 acres
(40 ha) [46].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES :
Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), an introduced species from Eurasia, has
invaded and replaced many native Southwestern riparian communities.
Since saltcedar communities are much less valuable to wildlife than
native communities, methods have been developed for removing the
saltcedar and revegetating with native species [70]. Along the lower
Colorado River on the border of southern California, nursery-grown
western honey mesquite seedlings have been planted with other native
species to revegetate riparian areas following saltcedar removal
[25,123]. Velvet mesquite can probably be used for these rehabilitation
purposes within its range.
Ninety-day-old nursery grown velvet mesquite seedlings were successfully
transplanted onto 2 feet (0.6 m) of topsoil covering asbestos waste
tailings near Globe, Arizona. Three years after planting, 96 percent of
the seedlings were alive and showed better growth and vigor than other
shrub species planted [98].
Stem cuttings of several species of mesquite (Prosopis spp.) have been
successfully rooted in greenhouse experiments when treated with a
rooting compound [41]. Fresh seed that has not been dried will
germinate readily without any pretreatment. Seed that has been stored
must first have the hard seed coat scarified, which can be done by
knicking individual seeds with a knife or by soaking numerous seeds in
sulfuric acid [81]. Nursery-grown velvet mesquite seedlings have
reached heights of 2.6 inches (6.6 cm) in 7 months, 6.75 inches (17.1
cm) in 12 months, 8.68 inches (22 cm) in 18 months, and 14.8 inches
(37.6 cm) in 21 months [51].
Members of the genus Prosopis are being developed for rehabilitation and
biofuel production in developing countries due to firewood shortages,
erosion, and other problems associated with desertification [39,40].
North American mesquites, however, appear best adapted to their area of
origin.
OTHER USES AND VALUES :
Velvet mesquite is used as an ornamental shade tree. It needs little or
no watering and can survive on limited rainfall [1,31]. Velvet mesquite
provides an excellent source of nectar for honey bees and is one of the
most valuable honey plants in Arizona [80].
Mesquite pods have been proposed as a source of food for human
consumption because they are very nutritious. Velvet mesquite pods
contain large amounts of sugar and the protein content of the seeds is
similar to soy beans. Flour made from velvet mesquite seeds and pods
mixed in small amounts with wheat flour has been tested in various
recipes including breads and cookies with favorable results [85].
Research suggests that velvet mesquite could be managed as an
agricultural multiple product crop, yielding both nutritious pods and
biomass for fuel.
Mesquites (Prosopis spp.) were probably the most important wild plant
staple of indigenous Southwest peoples [5,37]. The pods were a very
reliable food source because fruiting occurred even during drought
years. In some places velvet mesquite bosques extended for miles along
river bottoms. These bosques provided an abundance of beans, allowing
indigenous peoples to harvest selectively from trees producing high
quality fruits [101]. Pods were collected in large quantities and
stored in grainery baskets on the roofs of houses or sheds [5]. The
beans were ground into a flour which was used to prepare cakes and
breads, the main staple of the diet [5,37]. Various refreshing drinks
were made from the sweet pods. An intoxicating beerlike drink was
sometimes prepared by allowing the juices of the pods to ferment.
Flowers were eaten raw or roasted, formed into balls, and stored in
pottery vessels [37].
Mesquites were not only an important food supply for Southwest peoples
but also provided fuel, shelter, weapons, tools, dyes and paints,
medicines, cosmetics, baskets, furniture, clothing, rope, glue, and many
other everyday items [5,37].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Velvet mesquite infests millions of acres of grazing land in Arizona.
Introduction of livestock in the Southwest resulted in overgrazing,
dispersal of mesquite seed by cattle, and a reduction of range fires due
to insufficient fuels which allowed velvet mesquite to increase in
density and spread into grasslands [66,95]. Today dense velvet
mesquite thickets occur over vast areas that were essentially free of
velvet mesquite 100 years ago. Velvet mesquite is considered a range pest
or weed because infestations greatly reduce herbaceous forage available
for livestock and makes moving and handling livestock more difficult.
Adaptive features that make control difficult include (1) abundant,
long-lived seed that is disseminated by livestock and wildlife, (2) high
rate of seed germination over a wide range of environmental conditions,
and (3) its ability to resprout following injury [42,95]. Areas which
have been cleared in the past, either by chemical or mechanical methods,
generally were reinfested with seedlings and/or resprouts. Herbicidal
control attempts often resulted in only low to moderate mortality. Many
or most plants resprouted after treatment and developed into
multistemmed bushes.
Chemical control: Aerial application of herbicides generally resulted
in the greatest herbaceous forage production following treatment.
Banned for use on rangelands in the early 1980's, 2,4,5-T was one of the
most commonly used methods of velvet mesquite control in the 1950's,
60's, and 70's. The most effective herbicide for killing mesquites
(Prosopis spp.) available for use today is clopyralid; however, it is
much more expensive than 2,4,5-T. Velvet mesquite is probably
susceptible to aerial applications of clopyralid, which often results in
50 to 85 percent mortality of honey mesquite [12,62,63,64]. Recent
research suggests that even greater mesquite mortality, over 90 percent,
can be acheived by mixing clopyralid with picloram or triclopyr [12].
Moderate control has also been achieved with aerial applications of
tebuthiuron pellets [49,129].
Mechanical control: Mechanical methods devised for controlling
mesquites include tree dozing, cable chaining, roller chopping, root
plowing, tree grubbing, and land imprinting. For mechanical measures to
be effective, the dormant buds which occur along the underground stem
must be damaged or removed to prevent sprouting. If only the
aboveground portion of the plant is removed, velvet mesquite will
quickly resprout. Tree grubbing with blades attached to crawler
tractors which severs roots 6 to 12 inches (15-30 cm) below the soil
surface and root plows which uproot trees are effective control
measures, often achieving over 90 percent mortality [78]. Areas root
plowed or mechanically grubbed are often seeded with native grasses.
Without seeding, serious soil disturbances caused by these control
methods often reduces perennial grass cover for several years. On areas
with moderate shrub density, an alternative to root plowing, cabling, or
grubbing which disturbs the soil, is land imprinting followed by
seeding. The land imprinter is a heavy roller, set with pyramid shaped
teeth, 4 to 6 inches (10-15 cm) long, attached in an irregular pattern
and pulled behind a caterpillar tractor. As the roller passes over the
ground it leaves the area looking like a huge waffle. The tractor and
roller crush and shred the vegetation and deposit the mulch into the
funnellike depressions [49].
Hand grubbing mesquite seedlings, although very labor intensive, is an
effective preventive measure used for removing mesquites during early
stages of invasion. When the roots are severed 4 inches (10 cm) below
the soil surface, hand grubbing effectively kills plants under 1 inch
(2.5 cm) in diameter [78].
Biological control: Although not used to date, seed, legume, and flower
feeding insects have been proposed as agents for biological control of
mesquites [31].
Grazing: No matter what method of control is used, it needs to be done
in conjunction with a proper grazing program to ensure maximum benefits.
Due to its reproductive potential and regenerative capabilities, velvet
mesquite will probably never be eliminated from sites where it has
become established [29]. Dahl [29] suggests that a proper rotation
grazing system in coordination with controlled burning promises to be
most effective.
Wildlife: Control methods which leave selected individuals, scattered
patches, or strips of velvet mesquite can increase forage production for
cattle while retaining enough cover for wildlife. Aerial applications
of herbicides is often detrimental to collared peccary populations
because prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), an important food source, is
susceptible to spraying. Root plowing disturbs or kills burrowing
rodents.
Threat to Bosques: Velvet mesquite bosque communities today cover only
a fraction of the acreage covered in presettlement times. During the
settlement of southern Arizona, many bosques were cleared for fuelwood,
lumber, and to convert land to agricultural use. Today, bosque
destruction continues due to fuelwood cutting, clearing for further
agricultural needs and housing developments, and the lowering of
underground water tables [44,86]. Pumping of underground water for
agricultural use, has resulted in the total destruction of entire velvet
mesquite bosques when water tables were lowered below the rooting depth
of the mesquites, about 50 feet (14 m) [67,86]. Remaining bosques are
threatened in areas where pumping of underground water continues. These
bosques are extremely important avian habitat [46]. [See Cover Value]
Toxicity: Mesquite pods are normally considered excellent feed for
cattle and horses, however when large amounts of beans are consumed
continuously over a 2-month period serious digestive disturbances or
death may occur [32,116]. The disease known as "jaw and tongue trouble"
is characterized in cattle by profuse salivation, continuous chewing, a
protruding tounge, and a tilted head. Animals gradually become
emaciated and may lose up to 50 percent of their weight. If acute
symptoms, such as loss of apetite, rapid weight loss, nervousness, a
wild expression, and bulging eyes, develop, animals usually die within 2
to 4 days [116]. In cattle excessive buildup of mesquite beans in the
rumen apparently destroys the rumen bacteria that digest cellulose and
synthesize B vitamins [32].
BOTANICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
GENERAL BOTANICAL CHARACTERISTICS :
Velvet mesquite is a deciduous, thorny shrub or small tree. Plants may
grow into single-stemmed trees up to 50 feet (15 m) tall with a trunk
diameter up to about 2 feet (61 cm) or they may develop into an erect,
multistemmed bush [51,69]. The largest trees are often found along
water courses or floodplains where the deep root system has access to
year-round water. In general, tree forms are found on alluvial soils
whereas smaller forms are found on tighter, rocky upland soils [51].
Velvet mesquite has a strong tendency for apical dominance and a
well-developed crown [89]. Undisturbed plants therefore develop into
single-stemmed trees. If the aboveground growth is damaged or removed,
such as by freezing weather, drought, fire, trampling, browsing, or
cutting, dormant buds located on the underground stem initiate new
growth, resulting in the many-stemmed growth form. In many semi-desert
grasslands the shrubby form predominates because years of browsing,
trampling, and repeated chemical or mechanical control attempts resulted
in many plants sprouting from the base [114].
The bark on older branches and the trunk is dark brown, rough and thick,
and separates into long narrow strips [75]. Young branches may be green
and photosynthetic [119]. Stout, yellow thorns are about 0.25 to 1 inch
(0.6-2.5 cm) long and generally occur in pairs on young branches [75].
The yellowish-green flowers occur on a 2 to 3 inch (5-7.6 cm) long
cylindrical, pedunculate, spikelike raceme [51,113]. The flattened,
straight or curved legume-type fruits are 3 to 8 inches (7.6-20 cm)
long, occur singly or in drooping clusters, and may be yellow, red,
black, or mottled [114].
Velvet mesquite is a facultative phreatophyte which extracts moisture
from a large volume of soil through a well-developed root system. In
true desert environments plants are often restricted to wash areas where
the taproot can penetrate several meters to underground water. Roots
probably do not extend much more than 50 feet (14 m) [67,86], although
they have been found at depths of 175 feet (53 m) [99]. Plants growing
on sites where the soil is shallow or moisture does not penetrate deeply
have an extensive system of lateral roots that reach several meters away
from the plant base1w. Under these circumstances laterals are often
concentrated in a zone 6 to 12 inches (15-30 cm) below the soil surface
[90]. Plants can also extract water from soil held at high matric
forces [89]. These adaptations allow velvet mesquite to retain an
entire complement of leaves during all but the most severe droughts.
The primary botanical characteristics used to differentiate velvet
mesquite, honey mesquite, and western honey mesquite are the size,
shape, and hairness of the leaflets. Velvet mesquite leaflets are
generally short, hairy, and closely spaced; those of honey mesquite are
long, linear, glabrous and widely spaced; those of western honey
mesquite are intermediate [6]. Several manuals and keys are available
to aid in proper identification [6,61,75,91].
RAUNKIAER LIFE FORM :
Phaneropyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES :
Velvet mesquite reproduces sexually by producing an abundance of seeds.
Vegetative regeneration commonly occurs following damage to the
aboveground portion of the plant.
Seed production: Velvet mesquite flowers are pollinated by insects,
predominately bees. Although mesquite inflorescences contain hundreds
of flowers, generally only one to a few fruits develop per inflorescence
[113]. This ensures enough resources for proper development of a
limited number of fruits per inflorescence. Insufficient soil moisture
can cause early spring flowers to be entirely aborted before pollination
occurs. New flowers will develop if there is sufficient rainfall later
in the season. Due to fluctuations in the weather, fruit production can
be quite variable from year to year for plants growing in semi-desert
grasslands [51]. Plants growing along washes or in riparian areas,
where they have access to permanent underground water, produce fruit
quite predictably from year to year. The seeds are glossy brown, oval,
0.2 to 0.28 inch (5-7 mm) long and 0.12 to 0.2 inch (4-5 mm) wide [6].
There are about 13,418 seeds per pound (29,573/kg) [51]. The
reproductive potential of velvet mesquite is often greatly reduced by
seed-feeding insects. The life cycle of Bruchid beetles (Algarobius
spp.) and the amical weevil (Bruchus amicus) are dependent upon mesquite
fruit. Female beetles and weevils lay eggs on the pods and as the
larvae hatch they burrow into the fruits and feed on the seeds [71]. A
small, brown, circular spot often forms on the pod showing evidence of
larvae entry. Fruit collected within a 25 mile (40 km) radius of Tucson
had as high as 70 to 80 percent of the seeds attacked by insect larvae
[51]. Although flower and pod attacking insects significantly reduces
the production of pods and viable seeds per plant, velvet mesquite
produces pods in such abundance that numerous viable seeds are still
produced [71].
Seed dispersal: Animals - Pods are eaten and then dispersed by domestic
and wild animals. Cattle and rodents are the primary dispersers of
velvet mesquite seed; numerous other animals also consume the pods [see
Importance To Livestock And Wildlife]. Studies involving honey mesquite
showed that when pods were fed to livestock, 97, 79, and 16 percent of
the seeds passed through the digestive tracts of horses, yearling
steers, and ewes with the greatest number of seeds passing through
between 42 and 60 hours after feeding [43]. When velvet mesquite seed
pods were fed to domestic sheep, 32 percent of the seed passed through
the digestive tract intact and sound. Examination of cattle dung piles
on velvet mesquite-grasslands at a time when ripe pods were plentiful,
showed that each dung pile averaged 1,535 seeds, of which about 65
percent were sound [51]. Because it takes days for seeds to pass
through the digestive tracts of domestic animals, seeds are dispersed
great distances. The digestive juices of domestic animals also kills
some seed-eating insects [89]. Many rodents collect and store velvet
mesquite seeds or pods in caches. Merriam kangaroo rats often transport
seeds more than 100 feet (30 m) [51,103]. Seelings commonly germinate
from uneaten seed in rodent caches [103,105]. Sampling in 1948, 1950
and 1951 on the Santa Rita Experimental Range, showed that during these
years 37.4, 23.3, and 8.4 percent of seedlings emerging, respectively,
were from kangaroo rat caches [51].
Water - Velvet mesquite pods float and are carried downslope by flowing
water. Intense summer rainstorms often cause overland flows of water on
areas with only minor slope gradients in the Sonoran Desert. On the
Santa Rita Experimental Range, seedlings are abundant in the alluvium
along small water courses and in the alluvial fans formed by these
drainages [51].
Seed viability and germination: Velvet mesquite seeds contain a bony,
protective endocarp. Scarification of this hard seed coat must occur
before the seed can germinate. Scarification of the seed occurs
naturally when seeds pass through the digestive system of animals.
Seeds remaining in pods not consumed by animals remain dormant until the
seed coat is broken by weathering. Tests of various aged sound seed
showed that 1- to 45-month-old scarified seed displayed better than 94
percent germination, 1-month-old unscarified seed had only 20 percent
germination, and germination of 5- to 45-month-old unscarified seed
never exceeded 7 percent. Most germination of velvet mesquite seeds
within pod segments buried 1 inch (2.5 cm) below the soil surface in
Arizona occurred within 3 years, with about 35, 9, and 1 percent
germination occurring 1, 2, and 3 years after planting [118]. The
protective endocarp allows seeds to remain viable for long periods.
Seeds in dry storage have remained viable for decades. Germination of
stored seed has been reported as follows [51]:
Age in years Germination of sound seed
Unscarified Scarified
11 ---- 97.5%
44 20% 60%
50 30% 60%
Planting of unscarified seeds in the field showed that germination of
seeds within pod segments was 2 to 3 times greater than that of hulled
seeds. Over a 3-year period, 44.7 percent of seeds planted in pod
segments germinated, but only 15.8 percent of hulled seeds germinated
[118].
Velvet mesquite seeds germinate over a wide range of temperatures and
soil conditions. Better than 80 percent germination was achieved at
temperatures ranging from 61 to 100 degrees F (16-38 C) [112]. High
germination occurs over a wide range of soil pH (4-10) and on soils of
high salinity [112].
Seedling emergence and establishment: Velvet mesquite seeds must be
covered with a small amount of soil or dung for seedlings to become
established. Seeds that germinate on the soil surface normally die. In
Arizona, seedling emergence is most common during July and August when
soil moisture is adequate due to summer rains, but may occur anytime
between March and November [51]. Recent research on honey mesquite in
Texas suggests that past grazing history has little influence on
mesquite establishment in grasslands, but that herbaceous defoliation
during the year of seed dispersal is a key factor [16]. In semi-desert
grasslands of Arizona, velvet mesquite seedling establishment was
similarly found to be much higher in grazed habitats and in areas
denuded by drought than in vigorous stands of perennial grasses [51].
In true desert environments, conditions that favor plant establishment
may occur only once every 5 to 10 years following intense rains [123].
Because velvet mesquite seeds can remain viable for several years, seeds
stored in the soil may germinate following such events. In a crater in
northern Sonora, Mexico, velvet mesquite seedlings became established
following two unusually intense rainfalls in 1970 and 1972 which induced
ponding [120].
Seedling development: Soil moisture stress and browsing by rodents and
insects often result in very slow development of velvet mesquite
seedlings. Seedlings exhibit more rapid growth on coarse-textured soils
than fine-textured soils. Velvet mesquite seedlings rapidly develop a
deep root system which allows them to reach water and nutrients for
later growth before upper soil layers become dry [13]. Top and root
growth of seedlings found on upland sites at the Santa Rita Experimental
Range that were protected from browsing was as follows [51]:
age in months average maximum plant average maximum root
height penetration
(inches) (centimeters) (inches) (centimeters)
9 2.1 5.3 20.1 51.0
14 3.0 7.6 27.1 68.8
24 3.7 9.4 ---- ----
38 4.5 11.4 33.4 84.8
50 5.0 12.7 ---- ----
Another study found that on upland sites, 94 percent of all velvet
mesquite plants established over a 17-year period were under 3.0 feet
(0.9 m) tall [50].
Vegetative regeneration: Velvet mesquite plants have numerous perennial
dormant buds located along an underground stem. These dormant buds
generally occur from the basal portion of the plant to about 6 inches
(15 cm) below the soil surface [95]. When aboveground growth is damaged
or killed, new sprouts arise from the bud zone.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS :
In southern Arizona, precipitation and temperature change along an
elevational gradient to produce distinct vegetation zones. Annual
precipitation ranges from only a few inches at the lowest elevations to
about 19 inches (480 mm) at the highest elevations [55]. Velvet mesquite
occurs primarily below 5,500 feet (1,676 m) in the three lowest
elevation vegetation zones described below:
(1) The paloverde-bursage-cacti association is low elevation desert and
occurs from about 1,000 to 3,000 feet (305-914 m) in elevation and
receives about 7 to 12 inches (17.5-30 cm) of annual precipitation
[55]. In this zone velvet mesquite's abundance is influenced by
edaphic factors. The processes of weathering and erosion has
resulted in a soil particle gradient along the bajadas. This
gradient is from coarser textured soils on the upper bajada to
finer textured soils on the lower bajada and valley fill [11].
Velvet mesquite is often restricted to the coarse soils of the
upper bajada, which have more available soil moisture than the
finer textured soils [10]. Plants also occupy washes,
intermittent streams, or playas of the lower bajada where they
may have access to underground water, but are generally absent
from the middle slopes of the bajada.
(2) Desert grasslands dominated by grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.) and
threeawns (Aristida spp.) occur between about 3,000 and 5,000 feet
(914-1,524 m) in elevation and receive about 12 to 16 inches
(300-400 mm) of annual precipitation. Velvet mesquite occurs in
various densities throughout desert grasslands. On some sites it
occurs as scattered plants forming mesquite savannas, but on
others its persistence has converted many grasslands to "brushy
ranges". In southeastern Arizona, velvet mesquite-grasslands were
found primarily on level or rolling upland areas with coarse- or
medium-textured soils [30].
(3) Oak woodlands with velvet mesquite generally occur between about
3,650 and 5,500 feet (1,113-1,676 m) in elevation [55].
Velvet mesquite woodlands are found along major water courses and their
tributaries. These bosques attain their maximum development on alluvial
deposits where plants may reach over 50 feet (15 m) in height and
comprise over 95 percent of the trees [86,87]. Bosques may also occur,
but are less common, on fine-textured soils and in side canyons [87].
Bosques are commonly on a terrace 5 to 20 feet (1.5-6 m) above the river
channel [55,86].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS :
The geographical range of velvet mesquite has probably changed very
little since settlement times, but its abundance within its range has
increased dramatically. Its widespread occurrence in desert grasslands,
and to a lesser degree in oak woodlands, is a relatively recent event.
Velvet mesquite thickets and scattered plants were occasionally found in
desert grasslands before settlement times but are widespread today [55].
Velvet mesquite's dramatic invasion into grasslands has been attributed
to a combination of (1) overgrazing by livestock which reduced
herbaceous fuels and thus reduced the frequency and intensity of range
fires and (2) the concurrent dispersal of mesquite seed by livestock
into grazed habitats. Both factors are discussed below.
Fire - The role that range fires played in controlling velvet mesquite
density in desert grasslands prior to settlement by Europeans is
unclear. Some researchers feel that fires had the ability to keep
velvet mesquite at very low densities within grasslands [60]. Fire has
killed up to 50 percent of velvet mesquite plants smaller than 1 inch
(2.5 cm) in basal stem diameter [51]. In desert grasslands it often
takes velvet mesquite 10 to 20 years to reach this size [51]. Prior to
grazing by livestock, herbaceous fuels were probably sufficiently
abundant to carry a hot fire. Recurrent fires every 10 to 20 years
would have killed many plants and kept others in a low stature,
nonflowering state [51,60].
Seed dispersal - Some researchers hypothesize that low densities of
mesquites in Southwestern grasslands prior to the introduction by
livestock resulted primarily from limited seed dispersal [16]. Since
mesquites evolved with New World megafauna, such as camelids,
stegomastodons, notoungulates, and edentates [89], dispersal of mesquite
seeds became very restricted when most of these herbivores became
extinct at the end of the Pleistocene. With the introduction of
livestock by European settlers, mesquite invaded grasslands as cattle
transported seed from plants which were primarily found in draws and
drainageways. Livestock deposited the seeds into grazed habitats.
Studies have shown that vigorous stands of grass significantly reduce
velvet mesquite seedling establishment and survival when compared to
nearby stands weakened by grazing [51].
Saltcedar has become established along many rivers of the Southwest.
In some areas it has invaded and replaced velvet mesquite bosque
communities. Salt cedar spread seems to be related to the altering of
natural river flow by dams [130].
Flooding of rivers can cause the destruction or formation of mesquite
bosque communities. If channel widening and clearing occur bosques can
be destroyed by the undercutting and collapse of the terrace. Following
the receding of floodwaters, velvet mesquite seedlings may become
established on freshly deposited alluvium. When seedlings successfully
establish themselves on river bars, they further enhance the
accumulation of alluvium, which in time, progressively elevates the
surface above the river, allowing the development of the mesquite bosque
[88].
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT :
Spring bud break in velvet mesquite can vary from year to year and from
site to site. Bud break seems to depend on both photo and thermal
periods and rarely occurs until after the last spring frost [29,84].
Bud break and flowering generally begins earlier in warmer locations
such as at lower elevations, lower latitudes, and in warm microhabitats
[27]. Following bud burst, twig elongation and leaf growth are rapid
and are generally completed in about 4 weeks [24]. Inflorescences
emerge and develop simultaneously with the leaves. Flowers develop and
are fertilized about 25 days after they begin growth. Insufficient soil
moisture can cause spring flowers to be entirely aborted before
pollination occurs. Flowers can also be destroyed by hail, heavy rain,
or strong winds [51]. New flowers will form after abortion or
destruction if favorable conditions later arise. Pods mature about 7 to
9 weeks after bud burst [24,51]. In Arizona, fruits generally mature in
July and drop from the plant in September; however, mature fruits have
been observed from June through October [51]. Leaves usually drop by
late December [24], but during warm winters, plants may retain their
leaves until just before new ones begin growing in the spring [89]. If
summer rainfall is high, velvet mesquite can develop a smaller number of
second cohort of leaves [113]. A second set of flowers and fruit are
also possible with abundant summer rainfall.
Variation in the phenological development of velvet mesquite plants
growing at different elevations on the Santa Rita Experimental Range in
Arizona over a 4-year period is summarized below [51]:
year and elevation (feet)
phenological stage 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
1949
leaf bud burst late March early April late March late April
flowering begins early April mid-April mid-April late April
flowering ends early May early June mid-May early July
first pods mature mid-May early June mid-May early July
all pods mature early July early July early July early Aug
1950
leaf bud burst mid-March late March mid-March mid-March
flowering begins late March late March mid-March late March
flowering ends late April late April late April mid-May
first pods mature late April mid-May late April mid-May
all pods mature early July mid-July late July mid-July
1951
leaf bud burst mid-April mid-April mid-April mid-April
flowering begins early May mid April early April mid-April
flowering ends early June early June mid-May early June
first pods mature early June early June late May early June
all pods mature early July early July late June late July
1952
leaf bud burst mid-April mid-April mid-April mid-April
flowering begins mid-April mid-April mid-April mid-April
flowering ends mid-May early June early May mid-May
first pods mature early June early June late May late May
all pods mature early July mid-July mid-July late July
FIRE ECOLOGY
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
FIRE ECOLOGY OR ADAPTATIONS :
Velvet mesquite plants contain numerous, dormant buds on an underground
stem. Soil and rough bark sufficiently insulate the buds from the heat
of most fires [22,51]. Even 8-month-old seedlings have sufficiently
developed underground stem buds to allow some plants to survive burning
[19]. Following top-killing fires, numerous sprouts arise from the
underground buds.
Numerous wild and domestic animals consume and disperse velvet mesquite
seed. Seed from off-site plants can be transported to burned areas by
animals.
POSTFIRE REGENERATION STRATEGY :
Geophyte, growing points deep in soil
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
FIRE EFFECTS
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
IMMEDIATE FIRE EFFECT ON PLANT :
Fire mortality of velvet mesquite is generally low. Following most
fires, plants sustain little or no damage, have their aboveground
foliage partially destroyed, or are completely top-killed. Only a small
percentage are killed.
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF FIRE EFFECT :
Based on observations following prescribed fires and wildfires, top-kill
and mortality appear to be most influenced by the size of the velvet
mesquite plant and the intensity of the fire.
Size of the plant: Percent top-kill and mortality of velvet mesquite
following fire are inversely related to plant height and basal stem
diameter. At the Santa Rita Experimental Range in southern Arizona,
fall burning on areas with 303 pounds per acre (340 kg/ha) of herbaceous
fuel and about two burroweed plants per meter square resulted in greater
than 80 percent top-kill of velvet mesquite plants up to 2 inches (5 cm)
in basal stem diameter. The percentage of plants top-killed, on a size
class basis, gradually decreased to near zero as basal stem diameter
increased to 10 inches (25 cm) [79]. Evaluation of several other
prescribed fires at Santa Rita showed that young velvet mesquites less
than 0.5 inch (1.25 cm) in basal stem diameter suffered about 50 percent
mortality, but only 8 to 15 percent of plants greater than 0.5 inch in
basal stem diameter died [51]. In southern Arizona, an accidental June
fire in Lehman lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) resulted in 30 percent
mortality of velvet mesquite less than 0.5 inch in basal stem diameter
and 18 percent mortality of plants with basal stem diameters from 2 to 6
inches (5-15 cm) [20]. At Santa Rita, 4- to 6-inch-tall (10-15.5 cm)
seedlings were burned in a "good stand" of grass. Of the 8-month-old
seedlings burned in March, 67 percent were killed and 23 percent were
top-killed only. Of the 12-month-old seedlings burned in June, 65
percent were killed and 25 percent were top-killed only [19].
The effects of fire on velvet mesquite 10 months following a June
prescribed fire (mesquites in bloom at time of burn) in an area with 40
percent grass cover dominated by curly mesquite (Hilaria belangerii) is
summarized below [8]:
basal stem diameter (inches)
fire effects 0-.5 .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 >4 total
(number of plants)
no crown damage 1 4 5 7 8 12 37
partial top-kill 16 14 8 1 0 1 40
total top-kill 73 11 1 0 0 0 85
dead 8 1 0 0 0 0 9
total 98 30 14 8 8 13 171
Fire intensity: In some locations, velvet mesquite has displaced
grasses to the extent that the herbaceous fuels are insufficient to
carry anything but a cool or spotty fire [104]. Low intensity fires
occur under these circumstances and usually inflict no damage or only
partially kill the aboveground crown. High intensity fires may kill
many young plants, but mature plants are often only top-killed and then
resprout. Fire intensity is influenced most by the amount of herbaceous
fuel and the time of year burning takes place. Plants seem to be more
susceptible to burning during late spring and early summer, which is the
hottest and driest time of the year in Arizona, than during other times
of the year [22]. At the Santa Rita Experimental Range, about 29
percent of velvet mesquites were killed on areas burned in June,
compared to about 10 and 4 percent on areas burned in November and
February [51]. Following a June fire at Santa Rita, velvet mesquite
suffered 25 percent mortality in an area with 4,480 pounds per acre of
herbaceous fuel (4,973 kg/ha) dominated by Lehman lovegrass, but on
areas with 2,200 pounds per acre (2,465 kg/ha) of herbaceous fuel
dominated by black gramma (Bouteloua eriopoda), velvet mesquite suffered
only 8 percent mortality [20].
The fire effects on velvet mesquite on the Santa Rita Experimental Range
as influenced by plant size and season of burn are summarized below
[51]. Since herbaceous fuels were lacking, barley hay was added to
increase the fine fuel to 800 pounds per acre (896 kg/ha).
basal stem diameter Month
and fire effect
Feb June Nov Oct
up to 0.5 inch
top alive 3% 1% 13% ---
top-kill 74% 39% 66% ---
dead 23% 60% 21% ---
0.5 to 1.0 inch
top alive 35% 5% 12% 5%
top-kill 50% 62% 73% 90%
dead 15% 33% 15% 5%
1.0 to 2.0 inches
top alive 50% 6% 41% 28%
top-kill 50% 74% 52% 62%
dead 0% 20% 7% 10%
2.0 to 5.0 inches
top alive 78% 20% 63% 62%
top-kill 22% 65% 32% 31%
dead 0% 15% 5% 7%
over 5.0 inches
top alive 82% 40% 82% 90%
top-kill 18% 49% 18% 10%
dead 0% 11% 0% 0%
PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE :
The response of velvet mesquite following fire depends on the amount of
damage the fire inflicted on the plant. Plants may initiate new growth
from either aerial crown or underground stem buds. Following
low-intensity fires which only partially top-kill plants, velvet
mesquite often sprouts from axillary buds on the branches of the crown.
Following severe, top-killing fires which char or completely consume the
crown, plants survive by producing numerous basal stem sprouts [20,126].
Some plants which are lightly or moderately damaged survive by both
refoliating undamaged portions of the crown and by producing basal
sprouts. In general, smaller plants receive more crown damage and thus
tend to recover by basal sprouting, while larger plants tend to produce
crown sprouts. Cable [20] observed that basal sprouting predominated on
trees with a stem diameter less than 2 inches (5 cm), while crown
sprouting predominated on plants with basal stem diameters less than 2
inches.
Following a fall burn at Santa Rita, heights velvet mesquite resprouts
were 105 percent of preburn levels in 4 years. Six years after burning,
some resprouts flowered and set seed [79].
DISCUSSION AND QUALIFICATION OF PLANT RESPONSE :
NO-ENTRY
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Prescribed burning has not been effective in controlling velvet mesquite
because of the species' fire survival strategies. On grasslands in good
condition with a low density of velvet mesquite, repeated prescribed
fires have the potential to kill small plants under 0.5 inch (1.25 cm)
in basal stem diameter and keep others low in stature and from producing
seed [22]. However, on some sites velvet mesquite has reduced the
native grass cover to the extent that there is now insufficient fuel to
carry anything more than a "spotty" or "cool fire" [42]. In general,
fire will not carry in Southwestern grasslands having less than 600
pounds per acre of herbaceous fuel (654 kg/ha) unless there is a good
stand of burroweed present [127]. When there is less than 892 pounds
per acre (1,000 kg/ha), a windspeed of 8 miles per hour (12.8 km/hr) is
needed to carry the fire [127].
REFERENCES
SPECIES: Prosopis velutina | Velvet Mesquite
REFERENCES :
1. Allworth-Ewalt, Nancy A. 1982. Ornamental landscaping as a market for
mesquite trees. In: Parker, Harry W., ed. Mesquite utilization 1982:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1982 October 29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock,
TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: P-1 to P-7.
[5456]
2. Anthony, Robert G.; Smith, Norman S. 1977. Ecological relationships
between mule deer and white-tailed deer in southeastern Arizona.
Ecological Monographs. 47: 255-277. [9890]
3. Becker, Robert. 1982. The nutritive value of Prosopis pods. In: Parker,
Harry W., editor. Mesquite utilization 1982: Proceedings of the
symposium; 1982 October 29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University, College of Agricultural Sciences: M-1-M-9. [5453]
4. Becker, Robert; Grosjean, Ok-Koo K. 1980. A compositional study of pods
of two varieties of mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa, P. velutina). Journal
of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 28: 22-25. [10030]
5. Bell, Willis H.; Castetter, Edward F. 1937. Ethnobiological studies in
the American Southwest: the utilization of mesquite and screwbean by the
aborigines in the American Southwest. Biological Series 5(2).
Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. 55 p. [10033]
6. Benson, Lyman. 1941. The mesquites and screw-beans of the United States.
American Journal of Botany. 28: 748-754. [5016]
7. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
8. Blydenstein, John; Hungerford, C. Roger; Day, Gerald I.; Humphrey, R.
1957. Effect of domestic livestock exclusion on vegetation in the
Sonoran Desert. Ecology. 38(3): 522-526. [4570]
9. Bogusch, E. R. 1950. A bibliography on mesquite. Texas Journal of
Science. 4: 528-538. [5166]
10. Bowers, Michael A. 1988. Plant associations on a Sonoran Desert bajada:
geographical correlates and evolutionary source pools. Vegetatio. 74:
107-112. [4408]
11. Bowers, Michael A.; Lowe, Charles H. 1986. Plant-form gradients on
Sonoran Desert bajadas. Oikos. 46: 284-291. [10864]
12. Bovey, Rodney W.; Hein, Hugo, Jr.; Meyer, Robert E. 1988. Phytoxicity
and uptake of clopyralid in honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) as
affected by adjuvants and other herbicides. Weed Science. 36( 2):
20-23. [2981]
13. Brock, John H. 1986. Velvet mesquite seedling development in three
Southwestern soils. Journal of Range Management. 39(4): 331-334. [3243]
14. Brown, Albert L. 1950. Shrub invasion of southern Arizona desert
grassland. Journal of Range Management. 3: 172-177. [4452]
15. Brown, David E. 1982. Sonoran savanna grassland. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 137-141. [8897]
16. Brown, J. R.; Archer, Steve. 1989. Woody plant invasion of grasslands:
establishment of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) on
sites differing in herb. biomass and grazing history. Oecologia. 80:
19-26. [8735]
17. Burkart, Arturo. 1976. A monograph of the genus Prosopis (Leguminosae
subfam. Mimosoideae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 57: 219-249.
[5505]
18. Burkart, A.; Simpson, B. B. 1977. Appendix: the genus Prosopis and
annotated key to the species of the world. In: Simpson, B. B., ed.
Mesquite: Its biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4.
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 201-215. [5197]
19. Cable, Dwight R. 1961. Small velvet mesquite seedlings survive burning.
Journal of Range Management. 14: 161-161. [5132]
20. Cable, Dwight R. 1965. Damage to mesquite, Lehmann lovegrass, and black
grama by a hot June fire. Journal of Range Management. 18: 326-329.
[18587]
21. Cable, Dwight R. 1967. Fire effects on semidesert grasses and shrubs.
Journal of Range Management. 20(3): 170-176. [578]
22. Cable, Dwight R. 1973. Fire effects in southwestern semidesert
grass-shrub communities. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire
ecology conference; 1972 June 8-9; Lubbock, TX. Number 12. Tallahassee,
FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 109-127. [4338]
23. Cable, Dwight R. 1977. Soil water changes in creosotebush and bur-sage
during a dry period in southern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy
of Science. 12(1): 15-20. [3967]
24. Cable, Dwight R. 1977. Seasonal use of soil water by mature velvet
mesquite. Journal of Range Management. 30(1): 4-11. [3011]
25. Cohan, Dan R.; Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1979. Avian
population responses to salt cedar along the lower Colorado River. In:
Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies
for protection and management of floodplain wetlands & other riparian
ecosystems: Proc. of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway
Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 371-382. [4368]
26. Conine, Kathleen H.; Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D.; Drake, Jeff
F. 1979. Responses of riparian species to agricultural habitat
conversions. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical
coordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain
wetlands & other riparian ecosystems: Proc. of the symposium; 1978
December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. General Technical Report WO-12.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 248-262.
[4365]
27. Cornejo, Dennis O.; Leigh, Linda S.; Felger, Richard S.; Hutchinson,
Charles F. 1982. Utilization of mesquite in the Sonoran Desert: past and
future. In: Parker, Harry W., editor. Mesquite utilization 1982:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1982 October 29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock,
TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: Q-1-Q-20.
[5457]
28. Barneby, Rupert C. 1989. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the
Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 3, Part B: Fabales. Bronx, NY: The New
York Botanical Garden. 279 p. [18596]
29. Dahl, Bill E. 1982. Mesquite as a rangeland plant. In: Parker, Harry W.,
editor. Mesquite utilization: Proceedings of the symposium; 1982 October
29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of
Agricultural Sciences: A-1-A-20. [5442]
30. Darrow, Robert A. 1944. Arizona range resources and their utilization:
1. Cochise County. Tech. Bull. 103. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona,
Agricultural Experiment Station: 311-364. [4521]
31. DeLoach, C. Jack; Boldt, Paul E.; Cjordo, Hugo A.; [and others]. 1986.
Weeds common to Mexican and U.S. rangelands: proposals for biological
control and ecological studies. In: Patton, David R.; Gonzales V.,
Carlos E.; Medina, Alvin L.; [and others], technical coordinators.
Management and utilization of arid land plants: Symposium proceedings;
1985 February 18-22; Saltillo, Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-135. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 49-68. [776]
32. Dollahite, J. W.; Anthony, W. V. 1957. Malnutrition in cattle on an
unbalanced diet of mesquite beans. Progress Report 1931. College
Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 4 p. [10081]
33. Dumesnil, Mark; Sosebee, Ronald E. 1987. Herbicidal control of mesquite
by individual plant treatment. Res. High. 1987, Nox. brush & weed
control; range & wldf. mgmt. 18: 13. [6432]
34. Eddy, Thomas A. 1961. Foods and feeding patterns of the collared peccary
in southern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 25: 248-257.
[9888]
35. El Fadl, Mohamed; Gronski, Steven; Asah, Henry; [and others]. 1989.
Regression equations to predict fresh weight and three grades of lumber
from large mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa) in Texas.
Forest Ecology and Management. 26: 275-284. [6697]
36. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
37. Felger, R. S. 1977. Mesquite in Indian cultures of southwestern North
America. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert
ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, Inc: 150-176. [5195]
38. Felker, Peter; Clark, Peter R. 1980. Nitrogen fixation (acetylene
reduction) and cross inoculation in 12 Prosopis (mesquite) species.
Plant and Soil. 57: 177-186. [2990]
39. Felker, Peter; Cannell, G. H.; Clark, Peter R.; [and others]. 1983.
Biomass production of Prosopis species (mesquite), Leucaena, and other
leguminous trees grown under heat/drought stress. Forest Science. 29(3):
592-606. [4765]
40. Felker, Peter; Cannell, G. H.; Osborn, J. F.; [and others]. 1983.
Effects of irrigation on biomass production of 32 Prosopis (mesquite)
accessions. Experimental Agriculture. 19(2): 187-198. [5518]
41. Felker, Peter; Clark, Peter R. 1981. Rooting of mesquite (Prosopis)
cuttings. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 466-468. [10073]
42. Fisher, C. E. 1977. Mesquite and modern man in southwestern North
America. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert
ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, Inc: 177-188. [5196]
43. Fisher, C. E.; Meadors, C. H.; Behrens, R.; [and others]. 1959. Control
of mesquite on grazing lands. Bull. 935. College Station, TX: Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 p. In cooperation with: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. [10078]
44. Fox, Kel. 1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems: economic
considerations. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A, technical
coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian
habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. General Technical Report
RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 19-22. [10873]
45. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
46. Gavin, Thomas A.; Sowls, Lyle K. 1975. Avian fauna of a San Pedro Valley
mesquite forest. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. 10: 33-41.
[10861]
47. Germano, David Joseph. 1978. Response of selected wildlife to mesquite
removal in desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. 60 p.
M.S. thesis. [10532]
49. Gilbert, Bil. 1985. A tree too tough to kill. Audubon. 87(1): 84-97.
[2988]
50. Glendening, George E. 1952. Some quantitative data on the increase of
mesquite and cactus on a desert grassland range in southern Arizona.
Ecology. 33(3): 319-328. [4454]
51. Glendening, George E.; Paulsen, Harold A., Jr. 1955. Reproduction and
establishment of velvet mesquite as related to invasion of semidesert
grasslands. Tech. Bull. 1127. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 50 p. [3930]
52. Graham, Edward H. 1941. Legumes for erosion control and wildlife. Misc.
Publ. 412. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 153 p.
[10234]
53. Haase, Edward F. 1972. Survey of floodplain vegetation along the lower
Gila River in southwestern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of
Science. 7: 75-81. [10860]
54. Haller, John M. 1980. The indomitable mesquite. American Forests. 86(8):
20-23, 50-51. [5488]
55. Hastings, James R.; Turner, Raymond M. 1965. The changing mile: An
ecological study of vegetation change with time in the lower mile of an
arid and semiarid region. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 317
p. [10533]
56. Hastings, James R.; Turner, Raymond M.; Warren, Douglas K. 1972. An
atlas of some plant distributions in the Sonoran Desert. Technical
Reports on the Meteorology and Climatology of Arid Regions No. 21.
Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona, Institute of Atmospheric Physics. 255
p. [10534]
57. Hilu, Khidir W.; Boyd, Steve; Felker, Peter. 1982. Morphological
diversity and taxonomy of California mesquites (Prosopis, Leguminosae).
Madrono. 29(4): 237-254. [5468]
58. Holland, Dan C. 1987. Prosopis (Mimosaceae) in the San Joaquin Valley,
California: vanishing relict of recent invader?. Madrono. 34(4):
324-333. [3860]
59. Humphrey, R. R. 1949. Fire as a means of controlling velvet mesquite,
burroweed, and cholla on southern Arizona ranges. Journal of Range
Management. 2: 175-182. [5050]
60. Humphrey, Robert R. 1958. The desert grassland: A history of
vegetational change and an analysis of causes. Bull. 299. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 61 p. [5270]
61. Isely, D. 1973. Prosopis. New York Botanical Garden. 25(1): 116-122.
[9891]
62. Jacoby, P. W.; Meadors, C. H.; Foster, M. A. 1981. Control of honey
mesquite (Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa) with 3,6-Dichloropicolinic
acid. Weed Science. 29: 376-378. [5513]
63. Jacoby, P. W.; Meadors, C. H.; Foster, M. A.; Hartmann, F. S. 1982.
Honey mesquite control and forage response in Crane County, Texas.
Journal of Range Management. 35: 424-426. [5465]
64. Jacoby, P. W.; Ansley, R. J.; Meadors, C. H.; Cuomo, C. J. 1990. Control
of honey mesquite with herbicides: influence of stem number. Journal of
Range Management. 43(1): 36-38. [10082]
65. Johnston, Marshall C. 1962. The North American mesquites Prosopis sect.
Algarobia (Leguminosae). Brittonia. 14: 72-90. [5492]
66. Johnston, Marshall C. 1963. Past and present grasslands of southern
Texas and northeastern Mexico. Ecology. 44(3): 456-466. [3941]
67. Judd, B. Ira; Laughlin, James M.; Guenther, Herbert R.; Handegarde,
Royal. 1971. The lethal decline of mesquite on the Casa Grande National
Monument. Great Basin Naturalist. 31(3): 153-160. [2991]
68. Kartesz, John T.; Kartesz, Rosemarie. 1980. A synonymized checklist of
the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. Volume
II: The biota of North America. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press; in confederation with Anne H. Lindsey and C. Richie
Bell, North Carolina Botanical Garden. 500 p. [6954]
69. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock,
Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
70. Kerpez, Theodore A.; Smith, Norman S. 1987. Saltcedar control for
wildlife habitat improvement in the southwestern United States. Resource
Publication 169. Washington, DC: United States Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 16 p. [3039]
71. Kingsolver, J. M.; Johnson, C. D.; Swier, S. R.; Teran, A. 1977.
Prosopis fruits as a resource for invertebrates. In: Simpson, B. B., ed.
Mesquite: Its biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4.
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 108-122. [5193]
72. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
73. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native
and naturalized). Agric. Handb. 541. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 375 p. [2952]
74. Lyon, L. Jack; Stickney, Peter F. 1976. Early vegetal succession
following large northern Rocky Mountain wildfires. In: Proceedings, Tall
Timbers fire ecology conference and Intermountain Fire Research Council
fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, MT. No.
14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 355-373. [1496]
75. MacMahon, James A. 1985. The Audubon Society nature guides: Deserts. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 638 p. [4956]
76. Mares, M. A.; Enders, F. A.; Kingsolver, J. M.; [and others]. 1977.
Prosopis as a niche component. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its
biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 123-149. [5194]
77. Martin, S. Clark. 1948. Mesquite seeds remain viable after 44 years.
Ecology. 29(3): 393. [2992]
78. Martin, S. Clark. 1975. Ecology and management of Southwestern
semidesert grass-shrub ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap.
RM-156. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p.
[1538]
79. Martin, S. Clark. 1983. Responses of semidesert grasses and shrubs to
fall burning. Journal of Range Management. 36(5): 604-610. [1539]
80. Martin, S. Clark. 1986. Values and uses for mesquite. In: Patton, David
R.; Gonzales V., Carlos E.; Medina, Alvin L. [and others], technical
coordinator. Management and utilization of arid land plants; 1985
February 18-22; Saltillo, Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-135. Fort Collins,
CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station: 113. [10121]
81. Martin, S. C.; Alexander, Robert R. 1974. Prosopis juliflora. In:
Schopmeyer, C. S., ed. Seeds of woody plants in the United States.
Agric. Handb. 450. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service: 656-657. [7732]
82. McCulloch, Clay Y. 1973. Part I: Seasonal diets of mule and white-tailed
deer. In: Deer nutrition in Arizona chaparral and desert habitats.
Special Report No. 3. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish Department:
1-37. [9894]
83. McLaughlin, Steven P.; Bowers, Janice E. 1982. Effects of wildfire on a
Sonoran Desert plant community. Ecology. 63(1): 246-248. [1619]
84. McMillan, Calvin; Peacock, J. Talmer. 1964. Bud-bursting in diverse
populations of mesquite (Prosopis: Leguminosae) under uniform
conditions. Southwestern Naturalist. 9(3): 181-188. [10029]
85. Meyer, Daniel; Becker, Robert; Neukom, Hans. 1982. Milling and
spearation of Prosopis pod components and their application in food
products. In: Parker, Harry W., editor. Mesquite utilization 1982:
Proceedings of the symposium; 1982 October 29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock,
TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: L-1-L-12.
[5452]
86. Minckley, W. L.; Brown, David E. 1982. Wetlands. In: Brown, David E.,
ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and
Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 223-287. [8898]
87. Minckley, W. L.; Clark, Thomas O. 1981. Vegetation of the Gila River
Resource Area, eastern Arizona. Desert Plants. 3(3): 124-140. [10863]
88. Minckley, W. L.; Clark, Thomas O. 1984. Formation and destruction of
Gila River mesquite bosque community. Desert Plants. 6(1): 23-30.
[5511]
89. Mooney, H. A.; Simpson, B. B.; Solbrig, O. T. 1977. Phenology,
morphology, physiology. In: Simpson, B.B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in
two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 26-43. [5189]
90. Morton, Howard L.; Hull, Herbert M. 1975. Morphology and phenology of
desert shrubs. In: Hyder, D. N., ed. Arid shrublands--preceedings of the
third workshop of the United States/Austrailia rangelands panel; 1973
March 26-April 5; Tuscon, Arizona. Denver, CO: Society for Range
Management: 39-46. [1699]
91. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
92. Nabhan, Gary Paul. 1985. Gathering the desert. Tucson, AZ: The
University of Arizona Press. 209 p. [2848]
93. Nichol, A. A. [revisions by Phillips, W. S.]. 1952. The natural
vegetation of Arizona. Tech. Bull. 68 [revision]. Tucson, AZ: University
of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 189-230. [3928]
94. Ortega, J. C. 1987. Coyote food habits in southeastern Arizona.
Southwestern Naturalist. 32(1): 152-155. [9885]
95. Parker, Kenneth W.; Martin, S. Clark. 1952. The mesquite problem on
southern Arizona ranges. Circular No. 908. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 70 p. [3350]
96. Paulsen, Harold A., Jr. 1950. Mortality of velvet mesquite seedlings.
Journal of Range Management. 3: 281-286. [5015]
97. Peacock, J. Talmer; McMillan, Calvin. 1965. Ecotypic differentiation in
Prosopis (mesquite). Ecology. 46: 35-51. [5463]
98. Perry, Hazel M.; Aldon, Earl F.; Brock, John H. 1987. Reclamation of an
asbestos mill waste site in the southwestern United States. Reclamation
and Revegetation Research. 6: 187-196. [2918]
99. Phillips, Walter S. 1963. Depth of roots in soil. Ecology. 44: 424.
[9882]
100. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant
geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
101. Rea, Amadeo. 1979. Velvet mesquite. Environment Southwest. 486: 3-7.
[2977]
102. Reynolds, Hudson G. 1950. Relation of Merriam kangaroo rats to range
vegetation in southern Arizona. Ecology. 31: 456-463. [9889]
103. Reynolds, Hudson G. 1954. Some interrelations of the Merriam kangaroo
rat to velvet mesquite. Journal of Range Management. 7: 176-180.
[10032]
104. Reynolds, H. G.; Bohning, J. W. 1956. Effects of burning on a desert
grass-shrub range in southern Arizona. Ecology. 37(4): 769-777. [1958]
105. Reynolds, H. G.; Glendening, G. E. 1949. Merriam kangaroo rat a factor
in mesquite propagation on southern Arizona range lands. Journal of
Range Management. 2: 193-197. [4453]
106. Reynolds, Hudson G.; Martin, S. Clark. 1968. Managing grass-shrub cattle
ranges in the Southwest. Agric. Handb. 162. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 34 p. [4253]
107. Reynolds, H. G.; Tschirley, F. H. 1963. Mesquite control on Southwestern
rangeland. Leaflet No. 421. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 8 p. [588]
108. Scarbrough, David L.; Krausman, Paul R. 1988. Sexual segregation by
desert mule deer. Southwestern Naturalist. 33(2): 157-165. [5250]
109. Severson, Kieth E.; Medina, Alvin L. 1983. Deer and elk habitat
management in the Southwest. Journal of Range Management Monograph No.
2. Denver: Society for Range Management. 64 p. [2110]
110. Short, Henry L. 1977. Food habits of mule deer in a semi-desert
grass-shrub habitat. Journal of Range Management. 30: 206-209. [9895]
111. Shreve, Forrest. 1942. The desert vegetation of North America. Botanical
Review. 8(4): 195-246. [5051]
112. Siegel, Richard S.; Brock, John H. 1990. Germination requirements of key
Southwestern woody riparian species. Desert Plants. 10(1): 3-8, 34.
[10554]
113. Simpson, B. B.; Neff, J. L.; Moldenke, A. R. 1977. Prosopis flowers as a
resource. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert
ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, Inc: 84-107. [5192]
114. Simpson, B. B.; Solbrig, O. T. 1977. Introduction. In: Simpson, B. B.,
ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4.
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 1-25. [5188]
115. Solbrig, O. T.; Bawa, K.; Carman, N. J.; [and others]. 1977. Patterns of
variation. In: Simpson, B. B., ed. Mesquite: Its biology in two desert
ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, Inc: 44-60. [5190]
116. Sperry, O. E.; Dollahite, J. W.; Hoffman, G. O.; Camp, B. J. 1964. Texas
plants poisonous to livestock. Report B-1028. College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service. 59 p. [23510]
117. Stamp, Nancy E. 1978. Breeding birds of riparian woodland in
south-central Arizona. Condor. 80: 64-71. [8079]
118. Tschirley, Fred H.; Martin, S. Clark. 1960. Germination and longevity of
velvet mesquite seed in the soil. Journal of Range Management. 13:
94-97. [9892]
119. Turner, Raymond M. 1963. Growth in four species of Sonoran Desert trees.
Ecology. 44: 760-765. [9883]
120. Turner, Raymond M. 1990. Long-term vegetation change at a fully
protected Sonoran Desert site. Ecology. 7(2): 464-477. [10866]
121. Urness, Philip J. 1973. Part II: Chemical analyses and in vitro
digestibility of seasonal deer forages. In: Deer nutrition in Arizona
chaparral and desert habitats. Special Report 3. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Game and Fish Department: 39-52. [93]
122. Van Dersal, William R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States,
their erosion-control and wildlife values. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 362 p. [4240]
123. Virginia, Ross A.; Bainbridge, David A. 1988. Revegetation in the
Colorado Desert: lessons from the study of natural systems. In: Rieger,
John P.; Williams, Bradford K., eds. Proceedings, 2nd native plant
revegetation symposium; 1987 April 15-18; San Diego, CA. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin - Arboretum, Society of Ecological Restoration
and Management: 52-63. [4095]
124. Vorhies, Charles T.; Taylor, Walter P. 1933. The life histories and
ecology of jack rabbits, Lepus alleni and Lepus californicus ssp., in
relation to grazing in Arizona. Technical Bulletin No. 49. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 117 p. [9933]
125. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry
C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo,
UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
126. White, Larry D. 1969. Effects of a wildfire on several desert grassland
shrub species. Journal of Range Management. 22: 284-285. [2532]
127. Wright, Henry A. 1980. The role and use of fire in the semidesert
grass-shrub type. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-85. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 24 p. [2616]
128. Zolfaghari, Reza; Harden, Margarette. 1982. Nutritional value of
mesquite beans (Prosopis glandulosa). In: Parker, Harry W., editor.
Mesquite utilization 1982: Proceedings of the symposium; 1982 October
29-30; Lubbock, TX. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of
Agricultural Sciences: K-1 to K-16. [5451]
129. Herbel, Carlton H.; Morton, Howard L.; Gibbens, Robert P. 1985.
Controlling shrubs in the arid Southwest with tebuthiuron. Journal of
Range Management. 38(5): 391-394. [10080]
130. Everitt, Benjamin L. 1980. Ecology of saltcedar--a plea for research.
Environmental Geology. 3: 77-84. [6200]
131. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species originating in northern
Rocky Mountain forests. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 7 p. [20090]
132. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Plants
of the U.S.--alphabetical listing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 954 p. [23104]
133. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey. [n.d.]. NP
Flora [Data base]. Davis, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Biological Survey. [23119]
Index
Related categories for Species: Prosopis velutina
| Velvet Mesquite
|
 |
