- AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION
- FEIS ABBREVIATION
- SYNONYMS
- NRCS PLANT CODE
- COMMON NAMES
- TAXONOMY
- LIFE FORM
- FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS
- OTHER STATUS
Benny J. Simpson, Texas A&M Dallas
SPECIES: Prosopis pubescens
Choose from the following categories of information.
|
|
|
Benny J. Simpson, Texas A&M Dallas |
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION:
Meyer, Rachelle. 2005. Prosopis pubescens.
In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [].
FEIS ABBREVIATION:
PROPUB
SYNONYMS:
None
NRCS PLANT CODE [102]:
PRPU
COMMON NAMES:
screwbean mesquite
screwbean
tornillo
TAXONOMY:
The currently accepted scientific name of screwbean mesquite is Prosopis
pubescens Benth. (Fabaceae) [9,64,65,102,104,109]
LIFE FORM:
Tree-shrub
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS:
None
OTHER STATUS:
The Arizona Game and Fish Department lists screwbean mesquite as a harvest
restricted species, meaning permits are required to remove plant by-products
[6]. In addition, Plants Database lists screwbean mesquite as a salvage assessed
species [102]. According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, permits are
required to remove live individuals of species that are salvage assessed [6].
 |
|
|
Dick Henderson, Saguaro Juniper Corporation |
| AZ | CA | NV | NM | TX | UT |
MEXICO
| B.C.N. | Chih. | Coah. | Son. |
Screwbean mesquite can be a dominant species in the mesquite bosque habitat type [7,58,86,107]. In southern California, Baccharis (Baccharis spp.) and desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi) are associated understory species in mesquite woodland [86]. Along the Colorado River this habitat type may include honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), velvet mesquite (P. velutina), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), wolfberries (Lycium spp.), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), big saltbrush (A. lentiformis), cattle saltbush (A. polycarpa), blue paloverde (Parkinsonia florida), common elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis), Mojave seablite (Suaeda moquinii) and forbs such as carelessweed (Amaranthus palmeri) and gourds (Cucurbita spp.) [58]. Along the Rio Grande River in southern New Mexico mesquite bosques frequently contain screwbean mesquite with skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), wolfberries, seepwillow (B. salicifolia), arrowweed, and the grasses alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) [28,33].
Screwbean mesquite occurs in other riparian woodlands, such as the desert microphyll and cottonwood (Populus spp.)- willow (Salix spp.) cover types. For example, in New Mexico the gallery forests of the Rio Grande River contain Rio Grande cottonwood (P. deltoides var. wislizeni), Fremont cottonwood (P. fremontii), sandbar willow (S. exigua), Goodding willow (S. gooddingii), black willow (S. nigra), New Mexico olive (Forestiera pubescens var. pubescens), false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), seepwillow, and tamarisk, with screwbean mesquite having varied importance [37,38,99,112]. Herbaceous species typical in these areas include common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) , narrowleaf globemallow (Sphaeralcea angustifolia), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), and silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) [99]. On the Rio Grande River in western Texas, screwbean mesquite occurs with lanceleaf cottonwood (Populus x acuminata), willows, seepwillow, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), tamarisk, blackbrush acacia (Acacia rigidula), catclaw acacia (A. greggi), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and Texas paloverde (Parkinsonia texana) [91,107,108]. Screwbean mesquite is an associate of Chihuahuan Desert riparian forests, which may contain Fremont cottonwood, willows, desert willow, honey mesquite, velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), seepwillow, common reed (Phragmites australis), tamarisk, and giant reed (Arundo donax) [55]. Similarly, Sonoran streams and rivers which support riparian woodland can contain Fremont cottonwood and Goodding willow with either velvet ash, western honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana), velvet mesquite, or screwbean mesquite [98]. The vegetation of Sonoran alkali sinks also contains Fremont Cottonwood, Goodding willow, screwbean mesquite, as well as seepwillow, and big saltbrush, and spiny chloracantha (Chloracantha spinosa), but is frequently dominated by tamarisk and arrowweed in areas with no to moderate salinity [19]. Another mesquite-containing woodland is the desert microphyll woodland described by Thorne [100]. The vegetation may include blue paloverde, catclaw acacia, smoketree (Psorothamnus spinosus), western honey mesquite, desert willow, desert ironwood (Olneya tesota), creosotebush, desert lavender, plus smaller shrubs, such as singlewhorl burrobush (Hymenoclea monogyra), Anderson wolfberry (L. andersonii), broom baccharis (B. sarothroides), fairyduster (Calliandra eriophylla), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia var. obtusifolia), and desertsenna (Senna armata) [100]. Additionally, Sonoran oases contain screwbean mesquite along with California palm (Washingtonia filifera), Olney threesquare (Scirpus americanus), singlewhorl burrobush, arrowweed, saltgrass, alkali goldenbush (Isocoma acradenia), cattle saltbush, wheelscale saltbush (Atriplex elegans), desertholly, (A. hymenelytra), and sweetbush (Bebbia juncea) [88,105].
Screwbean mesquite also occurs in scrub vegetation. For instance, along the lower Colorado and Gila rivers and in the Salton Sea basin, vegetation is typically dominated by tamarisk with some sites also containing arrowweed, big saltbrush, iodinebush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), Mojave seablite, cattle saltbush, honey mesquite, and/or screwbean mesquite [78]. Haigh [54] reported screwbean mesquite, arrowweed, iodinebush, and broom baccharis occurring in a tamarisk-dominated community along an intermittent stream in southern Nevada. The riparian scrub habitats of southern Nevada valleys are comprised of species such as screwbean mesquite, sandbar willow, common reed, tamarisks, arrowweed, seepwillow, and saltbush [30,53]. Mohave wash scrub may consist of screwbean mesquite, catclaw acacia, desert saltbush, desert willow, Mojave rabbitbush (Ericameria paniculata), smoketree, white burrobrush (H. salsola), pygmy cedar (Peucephyllum schottii), western honey mesquite, desert almond (Prunus fasciculata), and skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata) [58]. Mesquites (Prosopis spp.) are also common associates of desert saltbush in some areas of the saltbush series of Sonoran desert scrub vegetation [101].
Classifications in which screwbean mesquite is a characteristic or associate species are listed below by location.
California: [3,19,58,78,86,89,100]
Arizona: [78,89]
New Mexico: [28,33,89]
Texas: [28,55,89]
Mexico: [55,78,89]
|
|
|
|
Lorence Collins, Wildflowers of southern California |
Screwbean mesquite is a native, deciduous, small tree or shrub [9,64].
It can reach a maximum height of about 30 feet (10 m) with a 1 foot (30 cm)
trunk diameter [36,70,79,104]. In the northernmost portion of its range it
commonly grows to between 8 and 13 feet (2.5-4.0 m) tall [9,109]. Growth is
typically shrubby and branches are long and thin [36,70,79,104]. The bark is
thick and fibrous when mature [70,104]. Spines, 0.2 to 1 inch (5-25 mm)
in length, protect the 0.8 to 3 inch (2-7.6 cm) bipinnately compound leaves,
which typically have 5 to 9 pairs of leaflets that are 0.1 to 0.375 inch long
(3-9.5 mm) [36,65,70,79,104,109]. Flowers are perfect and occur in cylindrical
spikes about 1.6 to 3.1 inches long (4-8 cm) [9,36,65,70,79,109]. The tightly
coiled, indehiscent pods that form after pollination are 0.8 to 2 inches (2 - 5 cm)
in length, 0.16 to 0.25 inch (4-6.4 mm) in diameter, and contain numerous seeds
[36,65,70,79,104,109].
RAUNKIAER [87] LIFE FORM:
Phanerophyte
REGENERATION PROCESSES:
Screwbean mesquite reproduces by seed which is typically scarified by the
digestive tracts of animals. Some mesquite species have dormant buds on the root
crown that sprout when plants are top-killed [5,46,111]. There are no reports of these
structures on screwbean mesquite.
Breeding system: Screwbean mesquite is monoecious [109]. Given that most species of this genus are self-incompatible [52], it is likely true of screwbean mesquite.
Pollination: Mesquites are typically insect pollinated [66,94]. Although pollination information specific to screwbean mesquite is not available, there is no evidence to suggest that is not insect pollinated as well. Screwbean mesquite is one of several mesquite species that make excellent bee forage and is also a source of nectar for butterflies [42,64]. Bees use both the pollen and nectar of screwbean mesquite [50,64].
Seed production: Although there is a lack of information specific to screwbean mesquite, seed production has been investigated for other members of the genus. Ffolliott [46] noted the estimate for seed production of mesquite species in Latin America, obtained in his previous work, as 104 to 105 seeds per tree in a given reproductive season. This is despite a reportedly low proportion of flowers that produce fruit with viable seeds [46]. Glendening and Paulsen [51] reported their largest velvet mesquite pod harvest as 39.5 pounds (17.9 kg), which equated to approximately 142,000 seeds and was obtained from a 10.5-foot (3.2 m) tall tree with a crown diameter of 19 feet (5.8 m). However the 4 year average of pods produced by velvet mesquite trees at elevations between 3,000 and 4,500 feet (914-1372 m) in southern Arizona was 1.38 pounds (0.62 kg). It is probable that seed production and variation between individuals of different sizes is comparable to screwbean mesquite; however the degree of similarity is unknown.
Seed dispersal: Seeds of screwbean mesquite are transported by water and domestic and wild animals, including coyotes and rodents [11,65,83]. When eaten, seeds get the added advantage of avoiding insects, thus decreasing insect-caused mortality [67]. Digestion also scarifies the seeds, which is generally required for germination [34,67,103]. The sprouting of uneaten velvet mesquite seeds from rodent caches has been reported [51] and, given the use by rodents, could occur in screwbean mesquite as well.
Seed banking: After 44 years, 60% of scarified velvet mesquite seeds from herbarium specimens germinated on damp filter paper in a dark oven set to 80 °F (26.7 °C) [51]. Although no similar information is available for screwbean mesquite, it is probable that their seeds also can remain dormant for long periods.
Germination: Scarification is necessary for screwbean mesquite seeds to germinate [34,67,103]. This typically occurs naturally by passing through the digestive tract of animals, but also occurs due to weathering [65,67,83,103]. Rates of germination in the wild are unknown; however, several laboratory studies have been performed. Typical rates of germination were between 60% and 70%, for treatments which included chemical or mechanical scarification [34,90,103]. Jackson and others [61] obtained the highest germination rates, with 98%-100% of seeds germinating in treatments with salt concentrations at or below 6,000 mg/l. They used a chemical scarification method in which seeds were soaked in 98% sulfuric acid for 25 minutes. Thermal scarification may increase germination rates compared to nonscarified controls, but have been substantially less effective than mechanical and chemical treatments. Dreesen and Harrington [34] demonstrated an increase in germination rates compared to nonscarified seeds when using a thermal scarification method where water heated to 194 °F (90 °C) was poured over seeds and then steeped for 4 hours. The mean increase was 7% for one seed source and 18% for another. However, mechanical scarification using a commercial scarifier, which uses a spinning paddle to throw seeds against an drum lined with 100 grit sand paper, showed a much larger increase to a mean of 62% germination from one seed source and 92% from the other [34]. Vilela and Ravetta [103] reported germination rates of just under 60% for a mechanical scarification method in which seeds were nicked with a razor blade; this was much higher than the thermal method which had germination rates of less than 5%. Chemical scarification showed an even larger improvement, with a germination rate of approximately 64%. In this case, thermal scarification involved dropping seeds in boiling water until it reached room temperature and chemical scarification was performed by soaking seeds in sulfuric acid 1 N for 15 minutes, rinsing them in running water 3 times for 2 minutes, and then soaking them in water for 15 to 30 minutes [103]. Tumble scarification, in which seeds were placed in a rock tumbler with pea gravel and coarse grit for 2 to 3 hours, resulted in slightly less germination than nonscarified seeds [34].
Soil also has an effect on germination. In a laboratory study, the soil with the highest germination rate (65%) was nursery mix (ground sphagnum (Sphagnum spp.), peat moss, and vermiculite in 1:1:1 ratio). Soil from a site with velvet mesquite resulted in 35% germination of screwbean mesquite, while only 25% of seeds germinated when fertilizer was added to the soil from the site with velvet mesquite. These figures are from seeds scarified by chemical, mechanical, or thermal methods randomly planted in 1 of the 3 mixtures [103].
Seedling establishment/growth: Although mesquite seeds can germinate on the soil surface, seedlings require a covering of 0.4 to 0.8 inches (1-2 cm) to provide anchorage and moisture [46].
Survival of screwbean mesquite seedlings in laboratory studies has been varied. Jackson and others [61] observed 100% survival for 120 days in all treatments with salt concentrations of 36,000 mg/l or less. Vilela and Ravetta [103] also obtained high seedling survival, with seedlings in the nursery potting mix having nearly 100% survival to 60 days after germination. Those in soil from a site with velvet mesquite had about 87% survival, while approximately 84% of those growing in the fertilized velvet mesquite soil survived 60 days after germination. In contrast, Rhodes and Felker [90] found screwbean mesquite a difficult species to grow in a greenhouse. Over the first few weeks of their trial screwbean mesquite seedlings exhibited a 68% survival rate. All seedlings subsequently died, but it is unknown whether the mortality was due to disease or the experimental increase in salt concentrations to 1.2%. Again, field data are not available.
Asexual regeneration:
There are no records in the literature of screwbean mesquite propagating vegetatively in the
wild. However, Goel and Behl [52] classified screwbean mesquite as "easy to root"
in an investigation of techniques for increasing output of genetically desirable individuals
for use in restoration planting. Between 80% and 90% of attempts resulted in rooting of screwbean
mesquite, depending on the method used. Eighty percent of cuttings rooted. Air layering, a rooting
method in which a ring of bark is removed and covered in sphagnum, then covered in plastic, was
slightly more successful, and air layering with the application of the root promoting indole acetic
acid resulted in 90% of samples rooting [52].
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Screwbean mesquite is found along streams, washes, floodplains, gullies, and in
alkali sinks, oases, arroyos, and bajadas in the desert southwest [9,36,58,105].
It reaches dominance on floodplains in a zone near the edge of the 1st terrace
and on higher alluvial terraces of large perennial waterways, approximately 5 to
20 feet (1.5-6 m) above the river channel [58,72,78,83].
Elevation: Screwbean mesquite has been reported at elevations from near sea level to 5,500 feet (1,676 m) [70]. Elevational ranges by state are shown in the table below.
| State | Elevation |
| Utah | 2,400 to 3,300 feet (730 - 1,000 m) [9,109] |
| Nevada | below 3,300 feet (<1,000 m) [9] |
| Arizona | just above sea level to 5,500 feet (<1,675 m) |
| New Mexico | just above sea level to 5,500 feet (<1,675 m) [70] |
| California | below 5,000 feet (1,525 m) [58] |
| Texas | 1,800 to 4,000 feet* (550 - 1,220 m) [107] |
Soils: Screwbean mesquite occurs on a wide range of soil textures [28,72]. Campbell and Dick-Peddie [28] reported screwbean mesquite on sites with light and sandy to heavy, clay soil textures. Individual articles have reported screwbean mesquite growing in silty clay loam [52], rocky clay silt [40], and clay to loam soil textures [99]. Several authors note the presence of screwbean mesquite in sandy areas [9,58,71,100]. Anderson [1] reports that in general, screwbean mesquite does not flourish on clay soils. Vilela and Ravetta [103] observed higher germination rates and seedling survival in nursery mix than in soil from a site containing velvet mesquite, which performed better than adding fertilizer to the same soil. See the Germination and Seedling establishment/growth sections for more detailed description of these results.
Screwbean mesquite can often be found in slightly to moderately saline soils [65,71]. Screwbean mesquite was found to be more salt tolerant than Fremont cottonwood and Goodding willow at shallow [61] and deep [1] soil levels. In a laboratory study Jackson and others [61] observed 100% survival over 120 days when salt concentrations were 36,000 mg/l or less. After 120 days of exposure to 60,000 mg/l salt concentrations 70% of screwbean mesquite survived. There was a trend for less stem growth in the 36,000 and 60,000 mg/l treatments. It is possible that screwbean mesquite responses were lower than those of other species due to the slow growth of screwbean mesquite. Percent germination showed a dramatic change, with 98%-100% germination at or below 6,000 mg/L and 0% germination at salt concentrations of 18,000 mg/L and higher [61]. When revegetating Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, NM, screwbean mesquite was planted on sites with salinities between 3 and 8 dS/m [99].
Screwbean mesquite occurs on alkaline sites, as well. For instance, Goel and Behl [52] performed experiments in which screwbean mesquite was grown in an area with pH ranging between 8.5 and 10.6 and the soil from a site with velvet mesquite used in Viela and Ravetta's [103] experiments had a pH of 8.2.
In addition, many mesquite species have been shown to fix nitrogen [45]. Although nitrogen fixation in screwbean mesquite has been reported [84], data demonstrating this is lacking.
Water Although a drought-tolerant species, depth to subsurface water is important to screwbean mesquite [28,56,83,100]. It is considered an obligate riparian species in most of its range [33]. Depths of subsurface water greater than 13 feet (4 m) are likely to be inhospitable to screwbean [1] and in revegetation efforts on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge it was not planted in areas where depth to the water table was greater than approximately 4 feet (1.2 m) [99]. Reports of screwbean mesquite on upland areas have not included information, such as water table depths, that would assist in determining what is allowing for screwbean mesquite occurrence outside the riparian zone [60,101]. Annual precipitation in the mesquite habitat type, in which screwbean mesquite can be a dominant species, is between 3 to 20 inches (7.5-50 cm) [72].
Historically, flooding was a typical disturbance in habitat types in which screwbean mesquite occurs
[1,58,83]. It can survive 1 to 3 months of flooding during the growing season [106], and establishes on
recently flooded areas [43,99].
SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
Shade tolerance: Screwbean mesquite is moderately shade
tolerant, with a layer occasionally forming under cottonwood and willow canopies [28]. Vilela and
Ravetta [103] found high nitrogen concentrations in green screwbean mesquite stems and pose the possibility
that they could be photosynthetically active.
Although typical succession, from one community type to another, has not been demonstrated in desert
riparian habitats of the American southwest [22,62], this could be changing. Historically species
establishing on disturbed sites would be the same species present before the disturbance and were
likely to persist until another disturbance occurred [62]. However, Cleverly and others [30] found
tamarisk dominating older sites. Over time, changes to water regimes including less frequent flooding,
lowering water tables, and increasing salinity will favor tamarisk [25,30]. Dick-Peddie [33] classifies
communities dominated by tamarisks as a successional-disturbance vegetation type. In addition, tamarisk
dominance seems to result in more frequent fires, likely due to deeper water tables and decreased flooding
producing larger and drier fuel loads [4,21,22]. Due to better regeneration than other burned riparian
species [24], tamarisk and arrowweed replace more original vegetation with each successive fire [22].
Smith and others [96] provide a review of these studies.
SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT:
Flowering typically starts in May [9,65,74,79] and pods begin ripening in July [9]. Campbell and
Dick-Peddie [28] note an approximate 20-day delay in the development of screwbean mesquite floral
and vegetative parts in Albuquerque, NM, compared to El Paso, TX.
Fire regimes: Historically fire was probably infrequent in many screwbean mesquite-containing habitats. In dry areas with low vegetation cover, fire is usually able to spread only after prolonged wet periods result in increased fuel loads [8,75]. Little is known of the historic fire frequencies in riparian habitats containing screwbean mesquite. Northwestern coniferous riparian areas have been shown to have longer and more variable fire intervals than surrounding uplands [95]. In northern riparian deciduous communities, fires are infrequent due to typically high moisture content and high leaf litter decomposition rates [16]. Although site characteristics, such as moisture conditions and the fire frequency of neighboring habitats, are likely to result in variation between riparian areas, a relatively infrequent fire interval is probably applicable to southwestern cottonwood-willow communities as well [24,92]. In mesquite bosque habitats on upper river terraces it is possible that fires were comparatively more frequent and may have been a factor, along with flooding, in maintaining the open understory of these forests [58,78]. However, Busch [22] found significantly smaller area of burned mesquite-dominated or codominated communities than was expected based on the proportion this type in the riparian areas investigated. In addition, Busch [22] found that screwbean mesquite communities with less vertical canopy development burned more often than average stands. Some riparian areas, such as desert oases, may have experienced more frequent fires [105]. There is evidence that some wetland areas, at least in the Sonoran region, experienced frequent fires before European settlement [31]. Although the historic role fire played in southwestern riparian habitats is not well understood, there is strong evidence that currently fire occurs in riparian habitats invaded by tamarisk at higher frequencies than other riparian communities [22]. One study of tamarisk stands along the Colorado River found that of 25 sites 21 had burned over 15 years [4]. Although screwbean mesquite may survive these fires, its recovery is likely to be much slower than that of tamarisk [1,24,59]. With an increasing frequency of fire screwbean mesquite will eventually be replaced [22,30,78].
The following table provides fire return intervals for plant communities and ecosystems where screwbean mesquite can occur. For further information, see the FEIS review of the dominant species listed below.
| Community or Ecosystem | Dominant Species | Fire Return Interval Range (years) |
| saltbush-greasewood | Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus | < 35 to < 100 |
| paloverde-cactus shrub | Cercidium microphyllum/Opuntia spp. | < 35 to < 100 |
| creosotebush | Larrea tridentata | < 35 to < 100 [85] |
| mesquite | Prosopis glandulosa | < 35 to < 100 [76,85] |
Seedling establishment of velvet mesquite on burned sites was less than in unburned plots [27]. There may be multiple causes for this including high seedling mortality [5,73,111], changes to site conditions which make establishment difficult [24], partially top-killed mesquites producing fewer seeds [110], and mortality of seeds when exposed to high temperatures. Slightly increased germination rate of thermally scarified screwbean mesquite seeds compared to nonscarified seeds was demonstrated in greenhouse studies [34], but has not been reported in field studies (see the Germination section).
In the riparian habitats in which screwbean mesquite occurs, competition from tamarisk also affects
postfire communities. As fire frequency increases, flooding decreases, and water tables drop, the competitive
advantage of tamarisk over other riparian species increases. In addition, fire can increase alluvium
salinity [24], further increasing the competitive advantage of tamarisk in the postfire environment.
A more in depth discussion of the interaction between tamarisk and fire can be found in the
Fire regimes and Successional Status sections.
FIRE MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Burning at low intensities on sites with relatively unaltered water regimes and little or no tamarisk
is likely to have the least detrimental effects on screwbean mesquite. Fire has been used in programs
to eradicate tamarisk but has generally been unsuccessful [83]. For information on the management of
tamarisk, see the tamarisk summary.
Palatability/nutritional value: Many animals find the pods of screwbean mesquite palatable. Coyotes, rodents, roadrunners, Gambel's quail and Mearns quail all eat screwbean mesquite pods [53,83,104]. The species of rodents eating screwbean mesquite pods have not been reported, but in a review Bogusch [15] lists many rodents which feed on southwestern mesquites, including Merriam's kangaroo rat, desert pocket mouse, and the white-throated woodrat. Other species noted to eat mesquite pods or leaves were white-winged doves, ravens, hooded skunks, and deer. Cattle are also known to eat screwbean mesquite pods [10,65]. However it is possible that the spines of screwbean mesquite deter some browsers [83].
Although screwbean mesquite is an important part of the diet for many species, it is not recommended as animal feed. Like other mesquites, screwbean mesquite is high in seed protein and pericarp sugar [11]. However, in a feeding trial on young chickens screwbean mesquite was shown to result in a negative protein efficiency ratio, which means individuals fed on this diet exhibited a net nitrogen loss [11]. The following table shows the composition of screwbean mesquite pods [11].
| % H2O | % Protein (N x 6.25)* | % Fiber | % Ash | % Sugar | |
| Whole pod | 5.9 | 11 | 17 | 3.8 | 25 |
| Seeds | 7.4 | 26 | - | - | - |
Cover value: Screwbean mesquite-containing habitats provide good cover for birds, and several bird species nest in screwbean mesquite communities [7]. Johnson and others [63] state "some of the cottonwood-willow and associated mesquite riparian vegetation types are the most productive avian habitats in the western U.S." Gullion [53] notes the high quality of cover for Gambel's quail provided by vegetation comprised of screwbean mesquite and other shrubs. Abert's towhee, mourning dove and Gambel's quail nest in screwbean mesquite communities year round [77]. Verdin and black-tailed gnatcatchers are resident summer species in mesquite communities [77,82]. Some summer nonresidents include ash-throated flycatcher, Lucy warbler, northern oriole, and the white-winged dove [77]. In winter, ruby-crowned kinglets and yellow-rumped warblers occur [77,82]. Engel-Wilson and Ohmart [39] cite their previous finding that during winter more avian habitat specialists were found in cottonwood-willow and screwbean mesquite communities, even though only 99 acres (40 ha) within the 49,420-acre (20,000 ha) study area were comprised of these types. Other bird species that inhabit screwbean mesquite-containing habitats include black-chinned hummingbirds, cactus wrens, ladder-backed woodpeckers, pyrrhuloxias and Crissal thrashers [18,82,107].
Screwbean mesquite communities also provide cover to small mammals. Thickets of Sonoran
desertscrub support desert cottontail as well as several rodents [101]. Screwbean mesquite
habitat types have relatively high diversity of nocturnal rodents including cactus mouse,
desert pocket mouse, Merriam's kangaroo rat, and the white-throated woodrat [2].
VALUE FOR REHABILITATION OF DISTURBED SITES:
Screwbean mesquite has been used in revegetation efforts in areas dominated by
tamarisks [17,35,99]. It can be planted on sites with higher salt concentrations
than many other native riparian species can tolerate [61,99]. However results of
screwbean mesquite plantings in revegetation efforts have been mixed. Successes are
mainly attributed to planting on sites within the requirements of screwbean mesquite
[17,99]. See the Asexual regeneration section for
success rates of different propagation techniques.
OTHER USES:
According to literature reviews and some ethnographic investigations [10,38], screwbean
mesquite was a food source for many southwestern tribes, including the Chauilla, Pima,
Apache, Cocopa, and Quechan [10,29,44]. The Chauilla Indians prepared and used the sweet,
dried pods in the much same way as other mesquite pods, by grinding them into meal for bread
or gruel [10,12,15,104]. Other tribes, such as the Pima, preferred to pit-cure the pods before
eating or further processing [10,29]. In addition, the pods or meal could be used to
make beverages [12,15,29,104] and a syrup was made by boiling the pods [15,36].
Screwbean mesquite was used by many southwestern tribes in a variety of other ways. The bark and roots had medicinal value and were used to treat wounds [10,15,65,104]. The use of gum, bark, and blossoms as food, medicine, dyes, and in making pottery have been reported for other southwestern mesquites [10,12,88], but it is uncertain if screwbean mesquite was also used for these purposes.
Currently use of screwbean mesquite is limited. Besides a small market for timber products, the current main use of mesquite is in the production of honey [42]. However, honey mesquite is typically used and the extent of screwbean mesquite use has not be reported.
Wood Products:
The wood of mesquites is hard, durable, and attractive [69,80]. Due to the slender nature
of the branches and often shrubby growth form screwbean mesquite is most typically used for
fuel and fence posts [13,29,65,70,80,104]. Native Americans used the wood for fuel as well as
for weapons, tools, and construction [10,29]. The wood is also used locally for small items,
such as tool handles and trinkets [13,65,104]. Custom woodworkers use mesquite wood, including
that of screwbean mesquite, for making small pieces of furniture and specialty items [69].
OTHER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
As an invasive, screwbean mesquite is much less of a concern than other southwestern mesquites
[47]. It does have some weedy tendencies [84], and Northington and Burgess [81] report a probable
introduction of 3 screwbean mesquite trees in Guadalupe Mountains National Park, TX. The source
of a small population in the San Joaquin Valley, CA, is uncertain, but it may have been introduced
as well [57]. However, widespread invasion of screwbean has not been reported. Being largely
restricted to riparian habitats is a likely factor limiting the potential spread of screwbean
mesquite.
1. Anderson, Bertin W. 1996. Salt cedar, revegetation and riparian ecosystems in the Southwest. In: Lovich, Jeff; Randall, John; Kelly, Mike, eds. Proceedings, California Exotic Pest Council: Symposium '95; 1995 October 6-8; Pacific Grove, CA. Berkeley, CA: California Exotic Pest Plant Council: 32-41. [44094]
2. Anderson, Bertin W.; Drake, Jeff; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Population fluctuations in nocturnal rodents in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 183-193. [5346]
3. Anderson, Bertin W.; Engel-Wilson, Ronald W.; Wells, Douglas; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Ecological study of southwestern riparian habitats: techniques and data applicability. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 146-155. [5343]
4. Anderson, Bertin W.; Higgins, Alton; Ohmart, Robert D. 1977. Avian use of saltcedar communities in the lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., technical coordinators. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 128-145. [5342]
5. Ansley, R. J.; Kramp, B. A.; Moore, T. R. 1997. Development and management of mesquite savanna using low intensity prescribed fires. In: Greenlee, Jason M., ed. Proceedings, 1st conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats; 1995 November 13-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 155-161. [28133]
6. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Special status species in the Arizona Heritage Data Management System, listed alphabetically by taxon and scientific name, [Online]. Available: http:www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/edits/documents/sssbytaxon_scientificname_001.pdf [2005, April 5]. [40924]
7. Austin, George T. 1970. Breeding birds of desert riparian habitat in southern Nevada. The Condor. 72: 431-436. [10874]
8. Bahre, Conrad J. 1985. Wildfire in southeastern Arizona between 1859 and 1890. Desert Plants. 7(4): 190-194. [37739]
9. 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]
10. Bean, Lowell John; Saubel, Katherine Siva. 1972. Telmalpakh: Chauilla Indian knowledge and usage of plants. Banning, CA: Malki Museum. 225 p. [35898]
11. Becker, Robert. 1982. The nutritive value of Prosopis pods. 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: M-1 to M-9. [5453]
12. 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]
13. Benson, Lyman. 1941. The mesquites and screw-beans of the United States. American Journal of Botany. 28: 748-754. [5016]
14. 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]
15. Bogusch, E. R. 1950. A bibliography on mesquite. Texas Journal of Science. 4: 528-538. [5166]
16. Bradley, Anne F.; Fischer, William C.; Noste, Nonan V. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. [19558]
17. Briggs, Mark K.; Cornelius, Steve. 1998. Opportunities for ecological improvement along the lower Colorado River and delta. Wetlands. 18(4): 513-529. [44093]
18. Brush, Timothy; Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1983. Habitat selection related to resource availability among cavity- nesting birds. In: Davis, Jerry W.; Goodwin, Gregory A.; Ockenfeis, Richard A., technical coordinators. Snag habitat management: proceedings of the symposium; 1983 June 7-9; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 88-98. [17820]
19. Burk, Jack H. 1977. Sonoran Desert. In: Barbour, M. G.; Major, J., eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 869-899. [3731]
20. Burkart, Arturo. 1976. A monograph of the genus Prosopis (Leguminosae subfam. Mimosoideae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 57: 219-249. [5505]
21. Busch, D. E. 1994. Fire in southwestern riparian habitats: functional and community responses. In: Covington, W. W.; DeBano, L. F., tech. coords. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to lands management. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 304-305. [29825]
22. Busch, David E. 1995. Effects of fire on southwestern riparian plant community structure. The Southwestern Naturalist. 40(3): 259-267. [26498]
23. Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. 1992. Fire in a riparian shrub community: postburn water relations in the Tamarix-Salix association along the lower Colorado River. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 52-55. [19095]
24. Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. 1993. Effects of fire on water salinity relations of riparian woody taxa. Oecologia. 94: 186-194. [22770]
25. Busch, David E.; Smith, Stanley D. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the southwestern U.S. Ecological Monographs. 65(3): 347-370. [26124]
26. 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]
27. Cable, Dwight R. 1967. Fire effects on semidesert grasses and shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 20(3): 170-176. [578]
28. Campbell, C. J.; Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1964. Comparison of phreatophyte communities on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Ecology. 45(3): 492-502. [7003]
29. Castetter, Edward F. 1935. Ethnobiological studies in the American Southwest. Biological Series No. 4: Volume 1. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico. 62 p. [35938]
30. Cleverly, James R.; Smith, Stanley D.; Sala, Anna; Devitt, Dale A. 1997. Invasive capacity of Tamarix ramosissima in a Mojave Desert floodplain: the role of drought. Oecologia. 111(1): 12-18. [28428]
31. Davis, Owen K.; Minckley, Tom; Moutoux, Tom; Jull, Tim; Kalin, Bob. 2002. The transformation of Sonoran Desert wetlands following the historic decrease of burning. Journal of Arid Environments. 50: 393-412. [44067]
32. DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. 1998. Wetlands and riparian ecosystems. In: DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Ffolliott, Peter F. Fire's effects on ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 229-245. [29832]
33. Dick-Peddie, William A. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. 244 p. [21097]
34. Dreesen, David R.; Harrington, John T. 1997. Propagation of native plants for restoration projects in the southwestern U.S.--preliminary investigations. In: Landis, Thomas D.; Thompson, Jan R., tech. coords. Regeneration, reforestation, restoration: The seedling is the key; National proceedings, forest and conservation nursery associations--1997; Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-419. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 77-88. [29122]
35. Egan, Thomas B. 1999. Afton Canyon Riparian Restoration Project: Fourth year status report. Proceedings of the California Weed Sciences Society. 51: 130-145. [44092]
36. Elias, Thomas S.; Dykeman, Peter A. 1982. Field guide to North American edible wild plants. New York: Outdoor Life Books. 286 p. [21104]
37. Ellis, Lisa M. 1995. Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments. 30(3): 339-349. [29819]
38. Ellis, Lisa M.; Crawford, Clifford S.; Molles, Manuel C., Jr. 1998. Comparison of litter dynamics in native and exotic riparian vegetation along the middle Rio Grande of central New Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments. 38(2): 283-296. [28902]
39. Engel-Wilson, Ronald W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1979. Floral and attendant faunal changes on the lower Rio Grande between Fort Quitman, and Presidio, Texas. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 139-147. [4358]
40. Everett, Percy C. 1957. A summary of the culture of California plants at the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1927-1950. Claremont, CA: The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden. 223 p. [7191]
41. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
42. Fagg, C. W.; Stewart, J. L. 1994. The value of Acacia and Prosopis in arid and semi-arid environments. Journal of Arid Environments. 27(1): 3-25. [24003]
43. Farley, Greg H.; Ellis, Lisa M.; Stuart, James N.; Scott, Norman J., Jr. 1994. Avian species richness in different-aged stands of riparian forest along the middle Rio Grande, New Mexico. Conservation Biology. 8(4): 1098-1108. [29775]
44. 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 Series 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 150-176. [5195]
45. 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]
46. Ffolliott, Peter F. 1999. Mesquite ecosystems in the southwestern United States. In: Ffolliott, Peter F.; Ortega-Rubio, Alfredo, eds. Ecology and management of forests, woodlands, and shrublands in the dryland regions of the United States and Mexico: perspectives for the 21st century. Co-edition No. 1. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona; La Paz, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, SC; Flagstaff, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 95-106. [37053]
47. 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 Series 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 177-188. [5196]
48. Flora of North America Association. 2004. Flora of North America: The flora. [Online]. Flora of North America Association (Producer). Available: http://www.fna.org/FNA. [36990]
49. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 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]
50. Gary, Norman E.; Witherell, Peter C.; Lorenzen, Kenneth. 1980. Distribution of foraging honey bees to multiple, small floral plots of various species. Environmental Entomology. 9(1): 43-46. [49306]
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. Goel, V. L.; Behl, H. M. 1996. Variation in thorn character within and among Prosopis species and vegetative multiplicaton of selected genotypes. Indian Journal of Forestry. 19(2): 132-136. [49308]
53. Gullion, Gordon W. 1960. The ecology of Gambel's quail in Nevada and the arid Southwest. Ecology. 41(3): 518-536. [49039]
54. Haigh, Sandra L. 1998. Stem diameter-age relationships of Tamarix ramosissima on lake shore and stream sites in southern Nevada. The Southwestern Naturalist. 43(4): 425-429. [29451]
55. Henrickson, James; Johnston, Marshall C. 1986. Vegetation and community types of the Chihuahuan Desert. In: Barlow, Jon C.; Powell, A. Michael; Timmermann, Barbara N., eds. Chihuahuan Desert--U.S. and Mexico, II: Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region; 1983 October 20-21; Alpine, TX. Alpine, TX: Sul Ross State University, Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute: 20-39. [12979]
56. Hilu, Khidir W.; Boyd, Steve; Felker, Peter. 1982. Morphological diversity and taxonomy of California mesquites (Prosopis, Leguminosae). Madrono. 29(4): 237-254. [5468]
57. Holland, Dan C. 1987. Prosopis (Mimosaceae) in the San Joaquin Valley, California: vanishing relict or recent invader? Madrono. 34(4): 324-333. [3860]
58. Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 156 p. [12756]
59. Horton, Jerome S. 1977. The development and perpetuation of the permanent tamarisk type in the phreatophyte zone of the Southwest. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium: Proceedings; 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: 124-127. [5341]
60. Isely, Duane. 1973. Prosopis. Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden. 25(1): 116-122. [9891]
61. Jackson, Janet; Ball, J. Timothy; Rose, Martin R. 1990. Assessment of the salinity tolerance of eight Sonoran Desert riparian trees and shrubs. Final Report: USBR Contract No. 9-CP-30-07170. Reno, NV: University of Nevada System, Desert Research Institute, Biolgical Sciences Center. 102 p. [52902]
62. Johnson, R. Roy; Bennett, Peter S.; Haight, Lois T. 1989. Southwestern woody riparian vegetation and succession: an evolutionary approach. In: Abell, Dana L., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: Protection, management, and restoration for the 1990's; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 135-139. [13515]
63. Johnson, R. Roy; Haight, Lois T.; Riffey, Meribeth M.; Simpson, James M. 1980. Brushland/steppe bird populations. In: DeGraaf, Richard M., technical coordinator. Workshop proceedings: Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds; 1980 February 11-14; Salt Lake City, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 98-112. [17900]
64. Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. 1999. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Available: North Carolina Botanical Garden. In cooperation with the Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [2001, January 16]. [36715]
65. 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]
66. Keys, Roy N.; Buchmann, Stephen L.; Smith, Steven E. 1995. Pollination effectiveness and pollination efficiency of insects foraging Prosopis velutina in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32(3): 519-527. [50448]
67. 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 Series 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 108-122. [5193]
68. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. [3455]
69. Larson, Robert E.; Sodjoudee, Mohammed E. 1982. Mesquite utilization: from the stump to finished product. 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: O-1 to O-12. [5455]
70. Little, Elbert L., Jr. 1950. Southwestern trees: A guide to the native species of New Mexico and Arizona. Agric. Handb. 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 109 p. [20317]
71. MacMahon, James A. 1988. Warm deserts. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Billings, William Dwight, eds. North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press: 231-264. [19547]
72. Martin, S. Clark. 1980. Mesquite. In: Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 118. [9858]
73. Martin, S. Clark. 1983. Responses of semidesert grasses and shrubs to fall burning. Journal of Range Management. 36(5): 604-610. [1539]
74. Martin, William C.; Hutchins, Charles R. 1981. A flora of New Mexico. Volume 2. Germany: J. Cramer. 2589 p. [37176]
75. McLaughlin, Steven P.; Bowers, Janice E. 1982. Effects of wildfire on a Sonoran Desert plant community. Ecology. 63(1): 246-248. [1619]
76. McPherson, Guy R. 1995. The role of fire in the desert grasslands. In: McClaran, Mitchel P.; Van Devender, Thomas R., eds. The desert grassland. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press: 130-151. [26576]
77. Meents, Julie K.; Anderson, Bertin W.; Ohmart, Robert D. 1984. Sensitivity of riparian birds to habitat loss. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 619-625. [5864]
78. 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]
79. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
80. Nichol, A. A. [revisions by Phillips, W. S.]. 1952. The natural vegetation of Arizona. Tech. Bull. 68 [Revised]. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station: 189-230. [3928]
81. Northington, David K.; Burgess, Tony L. 1979. Status of rare and endangered plant species of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. In: Genoways, Hugh H.; Baker, Robert J., eds. Biological investigations in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park: Proceedings of a symposium; 1975 April 4-5; Lubbock, TX. Proceedings and Transactions Series No. 4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 59-77. [16018]
82. Ohmart, Robert D.; Anderson, Bertin W. 1977. Vegetation structure and bird use in the Lower Colorado River Valley. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: a symposium; 1997 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 23-34. [52882]
83. Ohmart, Robert D.; Anderson, Bertin W. 1982. North American desert riparian ecosystems. In: Bender, Gordon L., ed. Reference handbook on the deserts of North America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press: 433-479. [44018]
84. Pasiecznik, N. M.; Felker, P.; Harris, P. J. C.; Harsh, L. N.; Cruz, G.; Tewari, J. C.; Cadoret, K.; Maldonado, L. J. 2001. The Prosopis juliflora - Prosopis pallida complex: a monograph, [Online]. Conventry, UK: HDRA--Henry Doubleday Research Association (Producer). Available: http://www.hdra.org.uk/pdfs/international_programme/ProsopisMonographComplete.pdf [2005, May 4]. [52883]
85. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; [and others]. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. [36978]
86. Paysen, Timothy E.; Derby, Jeanine A.; Black, Hugh, Jr.; [and others]. 1980. A vegetation classification system applied to southern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-45. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. [1849]
87. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]
88. Rea, Amadeo M. 1983. Sonoran desert oases: plants, birds and native people. Environment Southwest. 503: 5-9. [2967]
89. Reid, M; Schulz, K.; Schindel, M.; Comer, P.; Kittel, G.; [and others]. 2000. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the western United States--Chihuahuan Desert subset. Report from Biological Conservation Datasystem and working draft of April 23, 2000. Boulder, CO: Association for Biodiversity Information/The Nature Conservancy, Community Ecology Group. 154 p. In: Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (Producer). Available: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/nm/Chihuahua.pdf [2005, May 6]. [52906]
90. Rhodes, Dwight; Felker, Peter. 1988. Mass screening of Prosopis (mesquite) seedlings for growth at seawater salinity concentrations. Forest Ecology and Management. 24: 169-176. [5331]
91. Schmidly, David J.; Ditton, Robert B. 1979. Relating human activities and biological resources in riparian habitats of western Texas. In: Johnson, R. Roy; McCormick, J. Frank, technical coordinators. Strategies for protection and management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems: Proceedings of the symposium; 1978 December 11-13; Callaway Gardens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 107-116. [4356]
92. Severson, Kieth E.; Rinne, John N. 1990. Increasing habitat diversity in southwestern forests and woodlands via prescribed fire. In: Krammes, J. S., technical coordinator. Effects of fire management of southwestern natural resources: Proceedings of the symposium; 1988 November 15-17; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 94-104. [11277]
93. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
94. 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 Series 4. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc: 84-107. [5192]
95. Skinner, Carl N. 2002. Fire history in riparian reserves of the Klamath Mountains. In: Sugihara, Neil G.; Morales, Maria; Morales, Tony, eds. Fire in California ecosystems: integrating ecology, prevention and management: Proceedings of the symposium; 1997 November 17-20; San Diego, CA. Misc. Pub. No. 1. [Place of publication unknown]: Association for Fire Ecology: 164-169. [46203]
96. Smith, Stanley D.; Devitt, Dale A.; Sala, Anna; Cleverly, James R.; Busch, David E. 1998. Water relations of riparian plants from warm desert regions. Wetlands. 18(4): 687-696. [44038]
97. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. FEIS postfire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. [20090]
98. Stromberg, J. C. 1993. Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forests: a review of their ecology, threats, and recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences. 27(1): 97-110. [29724]
99. Taylor, John P.; McDaniel, Kirk C. 1998. Restoration of saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)-infested floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology. 12(2): 345-352. [29776]
100. Thorne, Robert F. 1976. The vascular plant communities of California. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 1-31. [3289]
101. Turner, Raymond M.; Brown, David E. 1982. Sonoran desertscrub. In: Brown, David E., ed. Biotic communities of the American Southwest--United States and Mexico. Desert Plants. 4(1-4): 181-221. [2375]
102. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service. 2005. PLANTS database (2004), [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]
103. Vilela, A. E.; Ravetta, D. A. 2001. The effect of seed scarification and soil-media on germination, growth, storage, and survival of seedlings of five species of Prosopis L. (Mimosaceae). Journal of Arid Environments. 48(2): 171-184. [49303]
104. Vines, Robert A. 1960. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the Southwest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1104 p. [7707]
105. Vogl, Richard J.; McHargue, Lawrence T. 1966. Vegetation of California fan palm oases on the San Andreas Fault. Ecology. 47(4): 532-540. [3044]
106. Walters, M. Alice; Teskey, Robert O.; Hinckley, Thomas M. 1980. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Volume VII: Mediterranean Region; Western Arid and Semi-Arid Region. Biological Services Program: FWS/OBS-78/93. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 84 p. [52899]
107. Wauer, Roland H. 1971. Ecological distribution of birds of the Chisos Mountains, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist. 16(1): 1-29. [24969]
108. Wauer, Roland H. 1977. Significance of Rio Grande riparian systems upon the avifauna. In: Johnson, R. Roy; Jones, Dale A., tech. coords. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 165-174. [5344]
109. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
110. 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 Experimental Station. 24 p. [24972]
111. Wright, Henry A.; Bunting, Stephen C.; Neuenschwander, Leon F. 1976. Effect of fire on honey mesquite. Journal of Range Management. 29(6): 467-471. [2622]
112. Yong, Wang; Finch, Deborah M. 2002. Stopover ecology of landbirds migrating along the Middle Rio Grande in spring and fall. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-99. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. [44694]
113. Zisner, Cindy D. 1999. Seedling identification and phenology of selected Sonoran Desert dicotyledonous trees and shrubs. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science. 32(2): 129-154. [39614]
