Talk:Mesquite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dead Mesquite Forest

Has anybody heard of the Dead Mesquite Forest?

It was the result of a drought in North Texas during the 1880's.

The drought is said to have been so bad that the mesquite died, and was left standing.

Would like more info.

Dunno if it's reliable, but [1] says in part:

Have you ever heard of the Dead Mesquite Forest? I had not – but listen to this! At the Haley Library I learned that Charlie Goodnight, Sul Ross, and other early defenders of the settlements were the first Anglos to traverse it. The memoirs of one of the early settlers of the area report that an elderly Tonkawa claimed the ghost forest was there when he was young. For at least eighty years, millions of large dead mesquites filled various wide draws just east of the Llano Estacado from Roscoe north to Spur, then east to Haskell and back down to Anson.

The trees were skeletons, ten to fifteen feet tall, with stubs of branches grotesquely angling up. Fire did not kill the trees, for no charcoal limned the limbs. Drought might have done the job, but it would have to have been far worse than our present nine-year drought – our mesquites have only just begun to suffer. So what killed the mesquites?

...

The Ghost Forest of the Breaks was cut down in the 1880’s and 1890’s for fence posts.

Cheers, Lunch 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

There are Prosopis species that would be unlikely to be called mesquite, such as Prosopis cineraria. I suggest to move this page to Prosopis. — Pekinensis 18:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, too, the name of the genus should not be redirected to the name of one group of species. In South America there are many species of Prosopis (cf Prosopis alba), usually called algarrobo (the Spanish name for the carob tree). Prosopis should be a genus page with links here and to the algarrobo trees' articles. --Pablo D. Flores 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, you are on the right track to improving this. This page could stay for information specifically on "mesquite" as defined separate from the entire genus - Marshman 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water usage (Mesquite and groundwater depletion)

The article says:

In many parts of Texas, particularly West and Central Texas, the proliferation of mesquite is directly responsible for lowering groundwater tables, exceeding even man's increased usage.

This seems rather incredible to me especially given the human impact on groundwater supplies such as the Ogallala Aquifer (among others). Does anyone have a reference for the mesquite's impact on groundwater supplies? Thanks. Lunch 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up: the sentence above seems to have been added by an anonymous user at 64.207.74.215 in November 2004. Lunch 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite believe it either, although in all fairness, it is true that a copse of trees, or any plants, can lower surface water levels. Tom Lougheed 16:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "reputedly causing even more lowering in some places than that resulting from human over-pumping." No one responded to the "cite needed" tag. Lunch 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source, even though its a little late. http://www.ucratx.org/A.pdf It says that removing mesquite could increase water yield in the Concho River valley by 33,000 acre-feet per year while avg human consumption is only 15,000 acre-feet per year. MonolithicNinja 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference.

I see where the report mentions the (estimated) 33,000 acre-feet/year increase. It says that would be a five-fold increase over current levels in that watershed. If you check the references, the report is quoting another report (that has yet to be issued) from the Southwest Farm Press (southwestfarmpress.com). These two together -- an astounding increase and an industry mag -- make me a little skeptical.

I don't see the 15,000 acre-feet/year figure for human use. What page did you see this? On page 2, there is a figure of 15,000,000 acre-feet/year water-use by humans. But that's state-wide -- not just UCRA's area, and not the area studied by the Southwest Farm Press.

Thanks for the help. If I get a chance, I'll check up on some of the other references in the UCRA report. Or if you get a chance, beat me to it! Lunch 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks as if water depletion is variable, since the growth period is only a few weeks out of the year beginning in April and usually ending in mid-June. If moisture is abundant, new leaves can appear later in the season. Adult honey mesquite (8-12 ft. tall) in north Texas were found to use up to 20 gallons of water per day during ideal mid-summer growing conditions and adequate soil moisture (Ansley et al. 1991a) Many studies have shown that grass production increases following control of mesquite (Dahl et al. 1978, Bedunah and Sosebee 1984). However, response is highly variable and dependent on many factors such as density of mesquite prior to treatment, effectiveness of treatment, soil type, and precipitation. In south Texas, mesquite colonizes grasslands, then serves as a nurse plant for other shrub species that establish in its understory (Archer 1989).[2] Also, from the same source: The concept of complete removal is questionable both economically and environmentally. Mesquite has many benefits to the ecosystem when maintained at moderate densities (i.e., as a savanna) or as a mosaic of thickets, grasslands and savannas (Ansley et al. 1996). Such benefits include enhanced soil fertility, shade for livestock, wildlife habitat, protection for some plant species, modified microclimate for cool-season plant species, and the potential for wood products. I didn't want to scatter all these points, using the same source. Let me know if that was improper.69.6.162.160 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

To add a clarifying remark to my last comments: My impression from the article and from comments was that there is an assumption, I believe to be mistaken, that water usage by the mesquite is constant. Reading further, I was confused by the mention of the cite number #1[3] which links to the tamirex. Tamirex is the same as mesquite through Class, but otherwise is a different plant. Water usage and the degree to which it is considered a nuisance could vary quite a bit, especially if you include the evergreen version. If the tamirex is a great nuisance, mostly near streams, then the writers of these articles should not imply that all tamirex and mesquites are a nuisance in all situations. 69.6.162.160 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Thanks for your comments.

To add a little more, salt cedar (tamarisk) is a plant native to dry areas of Africa and Asia; mesquite is native to dry areas of North America. (Despite being in the same taxonomic class - shared by thousands of plants - they are very different plants.) Salt cedar in North America is considered an invasive plant. Lunch 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)