Insights into Mesquite Trees and their Ecological Role

Mesquite trees play a crucial role in various ecosystems, providing forage, shade for livestock, habitat for wildlife, and wood products. They have different species, each adapted to specific desert regions. Mesquite seeds are dispersed by livestock and native animals, ensuring their propagation. Additionally, mesquite trees have extensive root systems and the ability to store energy and moisture efficiently. Understanding their characteristics is essential for managing grazing land and preserving biodiversity.

• Mesquite Trees
• Ecosystem Role
• Wildlife Habitat
• Livestock Forage
• Desert Species

iniko Follow

Uploaded on Aug 28, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Dan Robinett January 2018

2. Border monument 138, Sasabe, Az., 1893 Border monument 138, 1983, R.R. Humphrey, 1987

3. Coyote Mountains, Pima County, 1903 Coyote Mountains, R. Webb, 1999

4. Mesquite Species 1. Prosopis velutina Velvet mesquite the mesquite of the Sonoran desert and grassland region. 2. Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana Western Honey mesquite the mesquite of the Chihuahuan desert and grassland region 3. Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa Honey mesquite the mesquite of Eastern New Mexico and Texas. These three species were formerly considered varieties of P. juliflora. 4. Prosopis pubescens Screwbean mesquite a mesquite of the lower Colorado and Gila River Valleys.

8. Forage, shade for livestock Habitat for wildlife Food, fuel, shade and landscaping for humans Wood products

9. Dense mesquite and handling livestock J. Ruth Grassland wildlife Encroachment in riparian systems and water use Low forage production, soil erosion

10. Flowers (perfect) on a cylindrical spike Large amounts of seeds, 2000/pound of pods Persistent germination after 10 years in soil Seeds spread by livestock (pods 14% protein) Over 1000 seeds/cow pie 13-22% germination of seeds in range cow manure Seeds also spread by native animals Germinate and establish with summer rains

11. Mesquite has extensive lateral roots as well as a deep tap root Mesquite has a concentration of dormant buds found at the root- crown Plants have ability to store large amounts of energy (carbohydrates) and moisture in stems and roots H. Nessmith, 1972

12. Mesquite thought to be spreading as early as the 1890s, David Griffiths, J.J. Thornber Mesquite recognized as a problem plant for the range livestock industry in the 1930s Investigations begin in the 1940s and 50s in the Southwest Research results applied in the 1960s in Arizona University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

13. Dwight Cable, George Glendening, Robert Humphrey, Clark Martin, Harold Paulsen, Ken Parker SRER Mesquite seed production, longevity and germination Mesquite reproduction Mesquite physiology Hand cutting, grubbing Hand application of diesel oil to plant bases. Aerial spraying of herbicides (2,4,5-T) Prescribed burning Forage production Cost/returns

14. Clark Martin, Gilbert Jordan, UA Agricultural Experiment Station, SRER Howard Morton, Tom Johnson and Jerry Cox, Agricultural Research Service, Tucson, Az. New herbicides Forage production Erosion control Rangeland seeding

15. Hand cutting and herbicide application Large trees Labor intensive Hand grubbing, 1958 Jornada study 4265 acres Plants < 30 crown diameter Sandy soils 40-100 plants / acre 30 foot spacing of workers 0.65 man hrs. / acre $0.45 / acre cost University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photo Archives C. Herbel

16. Basal application of diesel oil at soil level Must be enough to penetrate to the bud zone One gallon treats 4-8 medium sized trees (6-10 diameter) Can be applied anytime the soil is dry Chemically girdles the mesquite plant 85% kill on upland mesquite 35% kill on bottomland mesquite University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

17. Herbicide 2,4,5-T .5 to .75 lb. acid equiv./acre 1:4, diesel/water emulsion Applied 4 gallons per acre. Applied Late May to early June Leaves fully formed but before wax forms on the leaves and plants are in flower Two applications a year apart needed for reasonable control 90% crown kill 50% mortality University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

18. 20 year study (Cable, SRER 1954-74) Chemical treatment Doubled forage production for six years Lehmann lovegrass dominates after 1963 After 20 years No significant difference between treated and untreated areas Areas on private ranches Altar Valley treated in the 1960s Single spray Poor results. University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

19. Development of machinery to control mesquite 1940s Costs then $10 - $25/ac. Costs now $500-1000 / ac. Archaeology T&E species Cost / benefit ? Land imprinter, 1985 Chaining, 1976, H. Nessmith

20. Tree masticator Tree shear Root plow Backhoe or excavator to extract mesquite

21. Control burning research SRER Humphrey (1951) Burroweed control high 85% + SRER Cable (1967) Low and high elevations, June 1952 and 1955 Burroweed control high 85%+ No difference in ann. grass prod. No difference in peren. grass prod Mesquite mortality very low Burroweed recovered by 1965 Drought period Mesquite Cable (1965) Hot wildfire in June 1963 Fine fuel loads 4500 lbs/ac fine fuel = 25% mortality 2200 lbs/ac fine fuel = 8% mortality Burroweed University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

22. Audubon Research Ranch (Bock, Kennedy, 2007) Fires in July 1987 and again in April 2002 18% mortality of velvet mesquite on ARR after two fires (1% after 1987 fire) No mortality of mesquite on grazed area Audubon Research Ranch, 12-1-14

23. May 1985 Altar Valley 10,000 acres burned 1985 through 1993 1800 lbs/ac (air dry) fine fuel May June timing < 5% mesquite mortality Excellent control of burroweed June 1985 Anvil Ranch, West Mill, KA 3, prescribed fire in June 1985 Oct. 1988

24. 11-24-98 5-9-02 9-20-07 Babaquivari Ranch, Thomas Canyon, KA 2, wildfire in May 2002

25. Any type of mesquite control will require maintenance to have adequate lifespan A 2014 study on SRER found that mesquite Re-infested treated areas within 6 years 10% canopy Maintenance is needed within 5 15 years Clara Miller

26. Remedy (triclopyr), Reclaim (clopyralid) Aerial foliar spray Soil temperatures > 75 degrees Mid June August The hardest part of foliar applied herbicide is getting the material into the plant and translocated to the crown

27. Eight, paired watersheds, 1974. (Martin, Morton, 1993) 13 years Erosion (head-cut advance) less with mesquite treatment Grass density increased with mesquite treatment Lower elevation = 2.5 times annual soil loss of higher elevations Watersheds 5 6, contrasting soils negated results Sediment yield Highest WS 4 Lowest WS 6 Both Sandyloam deep ES Both with mesquite treatment

28. Flume at watershed 4, 2015 Polyakov, Nearing, Nichols, Scott, Stone and McClaran, 2010, 34 years Not possible to evenly pair watersheds No significant differences in erosion / runoff, treated vs untreated (WS 5,6) Increased erosion / runoff 1994-1998 (1994 fire) Increased erosion / runoff 2000-2006 (drought 2002-06) Same trend in sediment yield from low to high elevations WS 4 highest at 6.69 tons/ha/yr WS 6 lowest at 0.85 tons/ha/yr Flume at watershed 7, 2015

29. Archer and Browning, 2008 Mesquite uncommon on uplands in 1902 By 1936 mesquite increased on sandy soils (Sandyloam Deep ES) By 1966 mesquite had increased on soils with clayloam subsurface horizons (Sandyloam Upland and Loamy Upland ES) High clay soils (Loamy Upland sites) still have low covers of mesquite Rodent Station # 111 486 Road 1936 SCS aerial photo

30. Mar 1969 Dec 1922 Jan 2016 Sandyloam Upland, 12-16 inch pz. Rodent Station, Pasture 12 south University of Arizona Santa Rita Experimental Range, Photographic Archives

31. Tiedemann, Klemmedson, 2004 Mesquite treatment in 1966 Greatest cover of Arizona cottontop, plains bristlegrass and bush muhly under the canopy of intact mesquite Mature mesquite should be considered as a refuge for native grass species Sandyloam Deep 12-16 pz. Mesquite - native grass state

32. McClaran, Angell 2006 Mesquite treatment in 1957 46 years 24 plots 1031 m elevation, 350 mm. precip. Findings Mesquite cover varied with treatment Perennial grass cover did not vary with treatment Burroweed cover did not vary with treatment Perennial grass density only threeawn species increased with treatment Little potential for increasing perennial grass in dry (< 350 mm precip) sites and < 20% mesquite cover

33. Dalke, 2012 UA Ms Thesis Paired study at exclosures Measured species abundance Three ecological sites Findings Mesquite least abundant on high clay soils (loamy upland) Native grass most abundant on low clay soils (Sandyloam deep) Lehmann lovegrass most abundant on high clay sites Mesquite cover favors native grass abundance Un-grazed favors native grass abundance Total grass abundance related negatively to increasing mesquite cover SRER, exclosure #11, Whitehouse Station

34. Perlinsky, Paige, McClaran, 2014 STM for ecol sites in MLRA 41-3 Monitoring since 1957 Single mesquite treatment Won t restore functionality Mesquite recovers to threshold level (10%) cover within 6 years (70%) Lehmann lovegrass threshold Between 1 -2 % basal cover Reached - 6 years of introduction (76%) Williamson, et.al. 2016 40+ year data set Test utility of Ecological Sites in interpreting monitoring data Findings The pattern of mesquite and Lehmann expansion was different for three ES classes in MLRA 41-3 Sandyloam Deep Sandylaom Upland Loamy Upland

35. Young soils Deep, coarse textured High infiltration, low water holding capacity, droughty Shrubs in the plant community Burroweed, snakeweed, catclaw acacia, desert hackberry Trees reinvade quickly Selective control methods (mechanical or hand applied herbicide) Recommend leave 5-10% canopy older trees Species diversity Native grass refuge Wildlife habitat Combate soil series, SRER

36. Lehmann, mesquite state Medium aged soils Deep, thick coarse textured surfaces, clayloam subsoils Good infiltration, high water holding capacity Sub-shrubs mainly burroweed, snakeweed Good candidate for broadcast herbicide to control mesquite Mechanical control for mesquite In eroded state ? Recommend leave 1-5% canopy older trees Species diversity Wildlife habitat Eroded state

37. Altar Valley Old soils Deep soils, thin coarse textured surfaces, clayey subsoils Moderate infiltration, high water holding capacity Sub-shrubs in the plant community (False mesquite, Range ratany, Desert zinnia, Shrub buckwheat) Compete well with Lehmann lovegrass May be killed with broadcast herbicide Selective control for mesquite Where sub-shrubs are present Recommend leave 1% mature canopy Species diversity Wildlife habitat SRER

38. Perennial grass Biomass and basal cover unaffected by removal at lower elevations Biomass and basal cover responded positively at mid and high elevations for <20-30 years Paired Watershed studies Differences in partial areas, soils, etc. = WS pairs not equal Need long pre treatment monitoring Mesquite invasion SLD first, SLU next, LU last Single treatment will not restore functionality Mature canopy a reservoir for native grass species Long term data sets an asset for research ES classification helps in planning and monitoring S&T Models with thresholds, temporal scales based on data Florida Station, SRER

39. Cable, D. R. 1967. Fire effects on semidesert grasses and shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 20: 170 176. Cable, D.R., 1965. Damage to Mesquite, Lehmann Lovegrass, and Black Grama by a Hot June Fire. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 18, No. 6: 326-329 Cable, Dwight R. 1976. Twenty Years of Changes in Grass Production Following Mesquite Control and Reseeding. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 30(1) pp. 4-11. Glendening, George E. and Harold A. Paulsen, 1955. Reproduction and establishment of velvet mesquite, as related to invasion of semi-desert grasslands. USDA Tech Bulletin 1127, 1955 Humphrey, Robert R. And A.C. Everson, 1951. Effect of Fire on a Mixed Grass-Shrub Range in Southern Arizona. Journal of Range Management . Vol. 4, No. 4: pp. 264-266 Jordan, Gilbert L. 1981, Range Seeding and Brush Management on Arizona rangelands, Coop Ext. Agric. Experiment Station. University of Arizona, College of Agriculture, T8-1121. Martin, S. C. 1970. Longevity of velvet mesquite seed in the soil. Journal of Range Management. 23: 69 70. Martin, S. Clark. 1975. Ecology and management of Southwestern, semi-desert grass-shrub ranges: the status of our knowledge. Res. Pap. RM-156. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Ag. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 39 p. Parker, Kenneth W.; Martin, S. Clark. 1952. The mesquite problem on southern Arizona ranges. Circ. 908. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 70 p.

40. Polyakov,V.O., M. A. Nearing, M. H. Nichols, R. L. Scott, J. J. Stone, and M. P. McClaran, 2010. Long term runoff and sediment yields from small semiarid watersheds in southern Arizona. Water Resources Research, Vol. 46, W09512, doi:10.1029/2009WR009001. Perlinsky, Anthony T. Ginger B. Paige, and Mitchel P. McClaran. 2014, Evaluating a State- and-Transition Model Using a Long-Term Dataset, Rangeland Ecol ogy and Management 67:173 182 . Tiedemann, Arthur R. and James O. Klemmedson. 2004. Responses of desert grassland vegetation to mesquite removal and regrowth. Journal of Range Management. Vol.57:455-465. Williamson, Jeb C.,Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Mitchel P. McClaran, Dan Robinett, David D. Briske, X. Ben Wu, and Maria Fernandez- Gimenez, 2016. Can ecological land classification increase the utility of vegetation monitoring data? Ecological Indicators. Volume 69. Yuan, W. Nie, Y., Kepner, W. Erickson, C. Jackson, M.. 2012 Hydrological impacts of mesquite encroachment in the upper San Pedro watershed, Journal of Arid Environments , 82 , 147 -155. Browning, D.M., S.R. Archer, G.P. Asner, M.P. McClaran, and C.A. Wessman. 2008. Woody plants In grasslands: post-encroachment stand dynamics. Ecological Applications, 18(4), pp. 928 944 Bock, Carl E., Linda Kennedy, Jane Bock and Zach Jones. 2007. Effects of fire frequency on velvet mesquite in an Arizona grassland. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 60: 508- 514. Dalke, Amber. 2012. Native and Introduced grasses have different responses to livestock, mesquite and soil texture. Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona. Martin, S.C. and H.L. Morton. 1993. Mesquite control increases grass density and reduces soil loss in southern Arizona. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 46(2): 170-175. McClaran, Mitchel P. 2003. A Century of Vegetation Change on the Santa Rita Experimental Range. In: Santa Rita Experimental Range: 100 Years (1903 2003) of Accomplishments and Contributions, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. P-30. pp. 16- 33.

41. Bahre, Conrad J. 1991. A Legacy of Change; historic human impact on vegetation in the Arizona borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 231 pp. Humphrey, Robert R. 1987. 90 Years and 535 Miles; vegetation changes along the Mexican border. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 448 pg. McClaran, Mitchel P. and Thomas R. Van Devender. 1995. The Desert Grassland. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 346 pp. Turner, Raymond M., Webb, Robert H., Bowers, Janice E. and James Robert Hastings. 2003. The Changing Mile Revisited. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. 334 pp. Webb, Robert H., Stanley A. Leake and Raymond Turner. 2007. The Ribbon of Green: Change in Riparian Vegetation in the Southwestern United States. The University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona. 462 pp