Next Article in Journal
Circularity Study on PET Bottle-To-Bottle Recycling
Previous Article in Journal
Food Waste in Da Nang City of Vietnam: Trends, Challenges, and Perspectives toward Sustainable Resource Use
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 13
10.3390/su13137369
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa

by
Khuliso Emmanuel Ravhuhali
1,2,*,
Humbelani Silas Mudau
1,2,
Bethwell Moyo
3,
Onke Hawu
1,2,* and
Ntokozo Happy Msiza
1,2
1
Department of Animal Science, School of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
2
Food Security and Safety Niche Area, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
3
Department of Animal Production, Fort Cox Agriculture and Forestry Training Institute, Middledrift 5685, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(13), 7369; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369
Submission received: 8 May 2021 / Revised: 9 June 2021 / Accepted: 15 June 2021 / Published: 1 July 2021
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Globally, there have been differing views on whether the proliferation of invasive species will be of benefit as a livestock feed source or it will have detrimental effects on the ecosystem. The infestation of invasive plants such as Prosopis species does not only affect the groundwater levels but also threatens the grazing capacity and species richness of most of the semi-arid areas around South Africa. Though Prosopis is invasive, it is however of good nutritive value and can serve as an alternative source of protein and minerals for livestock during the dry season. Bush encroachment by browsable invasive species can be controlled through biological methods by using organisms such as livestock. The utilisation of Prosopis through browse benefits livestock production and at the same time reduces its spread, thereby preventing possible environmental harm that may arise. Although several studies have been carried out globally on the assessment of the Prosopis species’ nutritive value and also on the threat of this invasive species to the environment, there is a need to update the state of knowledge on this species, particularly in the context of the semi-arid areas of South Africa where the dry season is characterised by less herbage of poor quality. It is therefore critical to understand whether Prosopis is a beneficial invader, or a detriment that needs to be eradicated. This review will contribute knowledge towards finding practical solutions to controlling Prosopis species and whether utilising Prosopis as a feed source will limit its spread and result in a vegetation structure where Prosopis becomes part of the ecosystem with limited detrimental impact. This means that the several components of the species such as nutritive value and the negative impact associated with this plant species along with the means to control its spreading must be well understood to recognise the plant species’ vital contribution to the ecosystem.

1. Introduction

In South Africa over the past half-century, various species of deciduous, leguminous thorn tree species have been introduced for various purposes, such as timber, firewood, bark for tannins, medicines, windbreaks, edible products for humans, and fodder for animals [1,2]. These trees include Acacia mearnsii, Opuntia ficus-indica, and Prosopis species. The genus Prosopis has several species and hybrids, and in South Africa, the dominant ones are Prosopis glandulosa (Honey mesquite) and Prosopis velutina (Velvet mesquite) [3]. The Prosopis species were initially introduced to South Africa from South, Central, and North America in the late 1880s, mainly to provide fodder (pods in drought years), shade for livestock, windbreak, wood for fuel, timber for furniture, and a nectar source for honey production [4,5,6,7]. The plant was of great value to all stakeholders until the 1960s [8,9], before its negative invasive impact on ecosystem services, biodiversity, and local people’s livelihoods was observed [10,11]. The species has invaded arid and semi-arid parts of Southern Africa, as well as other parts of the world [12]. The high invasive capacity is derived from its vigorous growth and high seed production and efficient dispersal mechanism, while the absence of natural seed-eating insects preserves the seed for extended periods [13]. In South Africa, Zachariades et al. [7] estimate that 1.8 million ha is covered by Prosopis. Various Prosopis species were introduced for various purposes such as shade provision for livestock and windbreak, leaves, and pods for feeding livestock. The deliberate planting led to numerous sources of seeds, which were spread distant and wide, both endozoochorously and through flooding occasions. Prosopis is an invasive tree species known for invading several millions of hectares of land in the Western Cape, Northern Cape, Free State, and North-West Provinces of South Africa, creating extensive, invulnerable thickets over vast regions [14]. Other than overwhelming the grazing land, devouring excessive amounts of groundwater, and reducing biodiversity, Prosopis is a very noxious invader, with areas of high infestation resulting in surrounding indigenous plants failing to deliver valuable ecosystem services for that ecological niche [15].
Besides its invasive problem, Prosopis still provides some nutritional benefits to livestock [16], and therefore, any control programme should not ignore its contribution to the smallholder livestock farmers in semi-arid areas. Furthermore, beneficial ecosystem services such as the reduction of soil erosion are obtained from this invasive plant [17]. It is therefore important to review the current knowledge on both the invasive and positive impact of Prosopis in semi-arid areas of Southern Africa. The information will aid in developing sustainable management strategies for the benefit of both biodiversity conservationists and livestock producers.

2. The Expansion of Invasive Species

Numerous tree plants have amplified their ranges within the previous few centuries as a result of human activities. Dunbar and Facelli [18] stated that several invasive species introduced into an area are considered pests for agricultural industries, as they pose an economic risk to these industries. Various writers have considered the expanding number of invasive species as a main, vital part of global change, because of their great ability to modify the essential efficiency, hydrology, nutrient cycling (soil improvement), and decomposition in the ecosystem [19,20,21]. Shackleton et al. [20] indicated that while appreciating the existence of the species, in order to manipulate the invasion of this species, there is a need to introduce the capital (namely natural, social, human, physical, and financial capitals) in order to reduce human vulnerability to natural disasters. Vitsousek et al. [19] reported that numerous invasive species biodiversity associations have consolidated the invasive plant tree species in their primary activities and have defined rules for their monitoring and annihilation. This includes partnering with relevant government entities (for policy and legislation) and other institutions, together with the land users [20,21].
Shackleton et al. [20] highlighted that even though some of these invasive species can be beneficial, there are some detrimental aspects that can create vulnerability in social–ecological systems. The detrimental and beneficial aspects of Prosopis invasive plant species on a widespread extent, especially on livestock and underground water, have been reported in numerous locations of the world [22,23,24]. Hence, the invasive woody alien plant species, as non-native organisms that increase from the point of introduction and become much more abundant, have a great potential to cause harm to the environment, as they are the key drivers of environmental change, disrupting ecosystem functioning, being detrimental to grazing lands, and tending to threaten the native biological diversity (being the main causes of biodiversity losses around the world), economics, and human and animal health [11,25,26,27,28].

3. Different Prosopis Species

In South Africa, three different Prosopis plant species were introduced from North, South, and Central America in the last 1800s, namely, P. glandulosa, P. chilensi, and P. velutina (Figure 1) [29]. The study of Visser [3] reported that of the above-mentioned species, as well as their crossbreeds, there are only two species that prosper in South African environmental conditions, specifically Prosopis velutina and Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana. Wild and du Plessis [8] stated that due to the nature of the species and its uncommon ability to adjust to extraordinary climate conditions, together with the potential of the high protein content of its pods, it can be used as a protein supplement for livestock during the dry season. Some of these Prosopis plant species are confirmed class II intruders, meaning that they are permitted to be grown in differentiated regions by allowing (permit) holders for prudent utilisation such as charcoal, building resource materials, and erosion control, as well as for medicinal purposes [11,24,30].
These species and their crossbreeds (hybrids) have been recorded as invasive species in terms of the National Environmental Management, Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (NEMBA) act (Act No. 10 of 2004). Early hybridisation between P. glandulosa var. torreyana and P. velutina has created a very intrusive hybrid due to the effect of “hybrid vigour”. Specifically, the species were precisely recorded as Category 1b species within the Western and Eastern Cape, Free State, and North-West Provinces of South Africa, which implies that they need to be controlled or overcome and removed in any conceivable way [31]. Hence, in the Northern Cape Province, they are categorised as Status or Category 3, which implies that they may stay where they are presently, excluding riparian regions, where they will be considered as Category 1b species [32]. No trade, proliferation, or planting is permitted in any of the listed provinces. The rules and regulations do not apply in any of the provinces of South Africa that are not listed.

4. The Habitat of Prosopis Species around South Africa

The genus has invaded several hectares of the western half of South Africa, forming extensive and impenetrable thickets over vast areas [14,33]. The study of Nel et al. [34] reported that numerous plant species have amplified their ranges within the past few centuries due to human activities. The increase in Prosopis species and the formation of extensive infestations have been widely escalated by wild and domestic animals, which mostly feed on ripe seed pods and scatter scarified seeds [12,28]. The Prosopis species distribution in South Africa is either by pods carried by flooding events and softened by water or dispersed by animals under the form of scarified seeds [24].
It is estimated that the spreading rate of Prosopis species in South Africa ranges from 18 to 40% per annum [24]. Van den Berg [35] stated that once the Prosopis species have set up in rangeland, the density of the infestations rapidly spreads at yearly rates of 3–10%. In the Northern Cape, Van den Berg [35] showed that the average annual rate of spread of Prosopis is very high, being approximately 15% in upland areas and up to 30% in riparian areas. Several estimations of provinces invaded with Prosopis species have been made over the decades [14,33]. With the use of biome-based procedures when ranking invasive plant species in South Africa [36], Robertson [37] stated that in South Africa, Prosopis plant species were ranked the second species in the Nama-Karoo biome and the third in the Succulent Karoo biome. Martin [38] reported that Prosopis seed may last a long time and may gain in mass over time to sizeable seed storage, which can endure for a minimum of 20 years without deteriorating. As per the study of Roberts [39], the measure of seed storage in South Africa changes over the distributional range of Prosopis species and is influenced by the existence or non-existence of animals, with accumulations of as numerous as 2500 seeds/m2 in some few regions.

5. Ecophysiology, Drought, and Salt Tolerance

Several authors highlighted the adaptability of this species in dry areas with more saline soils unsuitable for cultivation [12,40,41]. For example, Lauenstein et al. [42] stated that Prosopis species, especially flexuosa, grow and develop in a broader range in the flatlands where there is no additional water contribution. This could be linked to moderate plasticity at physiological and xylem anatomical levels and a positive absolute value in key drought tolerance characteristics. According to Villagra et al. [43], some of these species can survive the desert steppe with extremely severe low temperatures during winter times. Prosopis species have a defence mechanism or a system against drought strain, which involves alterations in gas exchange, stomata opening, osmotic adjustment, and leaf area [44]. Prosopis species are extremely tolerating salt [45], e.g., P. juliflora, P. tamarugo, P. laevigata, P. alba, and P. pallida, and can grow in saline soil regimes comparable to seawater [46,47,48].

6. The Negative Impact Associated with Prosopis Species

The negative effects of Prosopis invasions to the environment and biodiversity include the reduction in plant species richness, density, and diversity in arid areas [49], as well as increased local tree mortality due to increased competition for water, nutrients, and land with existing local vegetation [22,26,50,51,52]. The ecosystem activities, i.e., water supply, soil quality, and grazing areas, have been negatively impacted by Prosopis invasions, resulting in a range of negative results for native farmers [24,53,54,55]. Even though it can provide supplement protein in the dry winter season, Wise et al. [24] reported that the utilisation of Prosopis species is very limited or suppressed due to the existence of anti-nutritional factors, which tend to be poisonous to the livestock if consumed in large quantities.

7. Prosopis as an Invasive Species

Richardson et al. [56] defined an invasive species as naturalised plants that produce reproductive offspring, often in very large numbers, at considerable distances from parent plants (approximate scales: >100 m; <50 years for taxa spreading by seeds and other propagules; >6 m/3 years for taxa spreading by roots, rhizomes stolons, or creeping stems), and thus have the potential to spread over the considerable area. Currently, the invasive species are of concern for biological conservationists, environmentalists, and ecologists around the world [57]. According to the study of Shackleton [11], these biological invasions create a vital hazard to biodiversity and have been acknowledged as a major non-climatic driver of global change. Prosopis (mesquites) species were mostly introduced in arid and semi-arid parts of South Africa in the late 1800s by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Corporation with the main motives that they will benefit either livestock or humans together with the ecosystem [6].
According to Pasiecznik [12], several key factors that are favourable for invasive species to dominate over the area include climate change, land-use changes, and competitive ecological advantages. For instance, in South Africa, the widespread occurrence of Prosopis invasive plant species takes place mostly in the areas where there is a scant herbaceous layer available and where the conditions for establishment and germination are favourable [6,58]. According to Harding [59], seed production is predicted at 600,000 to 1,000,000 seeds per mature tree each year. It was highlighted that those seeds are most likely to sprout when they are scoured, as they pass throughout the digestive tract and are released into the humid faeces of ruminants [60].
Invasive alien Prosopis (mesquite) is known to suppress the germination and establishment of indigenous vegetation and forms a dense population. According to Lowe et al. [61], several initiatives to treat, control, and manage the invasive plant species have been practised in communities.

8. Prosopis Ecosystem Services

The Prosopis plant species have long been considered a significant plant species in arid and semi-arid regions [62]. These plant species carry out a multipurpose role that includes soil conditioning (improving soil fertility by balancing N, K, and P concentrations in the soil), controlling soil erosion, providing fuel energy resources, and providing wood for furniture and timber for construction [30,63]. With regard to indigenous knowledge on species ecosystem services, Shackleton and Shackleton [64] found that invasive species such as Prosopis species produce good high-value charcoal whose heartwood is very well built, durable, and high-quality biofuel energy that tends to burn very well. The plant species also provide fencing for dwelling compounds and farmlands, some shelter for both animals and human beings, fodder for livestock from its fruits and leaves, windbreak for protecting against heavy winds, and shade from sunburn [12,24,64].

8.1. Prosopis as a Feed Source for Livestock Production

The shortage of sufficient and high-grade forage is a key restriction in tropical livestock production [65]. As indicated, in several parts of the tropics, the utilisation of browse species as feed for ruminants is growing, especially when the amount and value of pastures are poor for a long time [66,67,68,69]. Prosopis pods play a great beneficiary role in livestock production, society, and the general economies in arid areas [70]. Several uses have been reported over the years for Prosopis plant species such as animal feed [71,72,73], due to their high carbohydrate and protein content and their bioactivities, along with their medicinal properties [74,75,76,77,78,79]. Due to their higher nutritive value than pasture, the pods and leaves of Prosopis species are very edible and are consumed voluntarily by goats, sheep, camels, and cattle. Pods can also be fed to monogastric animals as well [12]. Baptista [80] stated that the leaves of P. glandulosa had relatively low concentrations of fibre: 32–43% for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and 23–33% for acid detergent fibre (ADF). P. juliflora leaves are rich in crude protein (CP) (roughly 20%) and low in fibre (23.4%) levels, and they are usually not palatable because of flavonoids, polyphenols, and tannins [81,82]. Pods of Prosopis containing CP (12%), EE (2.6%) CF (25.4%), and ash (0.4%) were reported by Mahgoub et al. [71], and Sawal et al. [62] found that Prosopis pods are highly palatable and have high nutritive value, comprising protein (7–22%), crude fibre (11–35%), fat (1–6%), ash (3–6%) and carbohydrates (30–75%) [83]. Phosphorus, Mg, and Ca are the most critically required minerals by animals, as reported by Kebede [84]. Al-Harthi [85] detailed that the pods contained a mineral concentration of 0.66% Ca, 0.20% total P, 764 ppm Fe, 69.4 ppm Zn, 33.9 ppm Mn, 36.1 ppm Cu, 21.7 ppm Cr, 7.4 ppm Cd, 9.8 ppm Ni, and 28.2 ppm Pb. Prosopis pods have a satisfactory amount of minerals [85] that could be of good productivity and display no signs of insufficiencies.
Eldaw [86] stated that the proteins of Prosopis pods carry almost all the essential amino acids in higher concentration than found in leaves. According to Astudillo et al. [87], the amino acid concentration of leaves from six mesquite species had similar values to those of lucerne. Mohamed et al. [88] also stated that the rich content of Prosopis pods with a concentration of energy, minerals, and proteins gives strong evidence that most Prosopis species can be the possible feed tree that can meet the animal’s nutrient requirements for the sustainability of animal production. Table 1 shows the chemical composition of Prosopis species leaves and pods (% of DM), and Table 2 shows the nutritive value of Prosopis velutina leaves harvested around North West province and analysed in North West University Animal Science Laboratory. Table 3 shows the mineral concentration of Prosopis species pods, and Table 4 shows amino acids of Prosopis species leaves, pods, and seeds.

8.2. Prosopis Species for Medicinal Purposes

Various reports are highlighting that Prosopis species have provided treatments for several years, treating various ailments [89,90,91]. Over many years, the plant species have been utilised for traditional medicines, usually using their pods, leaves, roots, and seeds for treating various maladies [92,93]. In South Africa, Prosopis pods have been utilised to stabilise blood sugar levels in humans as an indigenous medicine (manna) [94]. Bioactive compounds found in Prosopis species play a substantial role in indigenous medical systems [95,96]. Technically, the plant species has a vast history in medical practices and its versatile uses in local areas [97,98].

9. The Anti-Nutritional Factors Associated with Prosopis Species

Ehsen [110] stated that anti-nutritional factors (ANFs) are secondary plant metabolites and are considered to be biologically active substances. The fruits, seed, and other plant parts produce these substances [111,112]. A study conducted by Anhwange et al. [106] revealed that Prosopis species contain ANFs, i.e., saponins, alkaloids, tannins, and oxalates, in varying quantities. The utility of Prosopis species is limited as animal feed by the existence of ANFs. According to Aganga and Tswenyane [112], ANFs reduce livestock productivity, but they can cause toxicity or confinement if animals eat large amounts of feed rich in these substances.
Saponins are glycosides comprising a polycyclic aglycone of any C27 steroid or C30 triterpenoid bound to carbohydrate [112,113]. They occur in Prosopis species and other various distinct plants. According to Thomas [113], saponins have a characteristic unpleasant taste, foam in water, and may induce red blood cell haemolysis. The levels of ANFs in Prosopis pods were reported for saponin (317 mg/100 g), total phenol (640 mg/100 g), tannin (860 mg/100 g), and phytic acid (181 mg/100 g) [86,114]. The trypsin inhibitors such as haemeaglutins are heat liable and are concentrated on the seed for P. glandulosa as, as reported by Eldaw [86]. According to Thomas [113], tannins are complex polyphenolic plant compounds soluble in polar solutions and capable of precipitating several biomolecules, including carbohydrates, minerals, and proteins. In high proportion, tannins in Prosopis leaves have detrimental effects on the digestibility of CP and DM, and they lower the retention of nitrogen. The leaves of Prosopis contain 2.2% tannins per DM, and young leaves have a greater level of tannins than older leaves [115].
According to Panche [116], flavonoids belong to a class of secondary plant metabolites with a polyphenolic structure commonly found in plants and are a vital class of natural products. Several studies have confirmed the presence of flavonoids in the Prosopis species. Young et al. [117] found luteolin, myricetin, and quercetin in the pods of Prosopis alba. Amorowicz [118] described legume seeds as a very good flavonoid source for apigenin, quercetin, daidzein, kaempferol, and genistein. Diaz-Batalla [108] stated that the seed of Prosopis is a good source of apigenin and a vital active constituent with positive health effects on animals. Table 5 demonstrates the levels of ANFs of different Prosopis species.

10. Livestock as a Tool to Control Invasive Species

Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to reduce and control the increase in invasive species. Livestock grazing in low invasive species abundance and separate species zonation common in wetland ecosystems may permit the superior achievement and targeted control of invasive species [121]. Zedler and Kercher [122] suggested that livestock could be useful resources for handling the influences and increase in invasive species in marshes where monoculture-forming invasive species are ordinary and drive large-scale ecosystem alteration. On the other hand, livestock is considered as one of the chief contributors to the spread of invasive species, as they can introduce pods from outside the area [53].
In the African continent and other continents, usage of livestock to manage invasive species has been fundamentally limited to world grasslands, where this technique has been met with diverse success [121,123]. Although small stock alone as a treatment cannot successfully eradicate invasive species, few authors have documented the use of goats. Mayo [124] used goats to control Sericea lespedeza, and a reduction in seed production was witnessed. Results by Rathfon et al. [125] suggested that goats give an effective and environmentally friendly method to control invasive species. According to Nyamukanza and Scogings [126], constant browsing by goats of Acacia karroo sprouts when young will decrease the number of regrowth coppices, halting the species’ expansion in semi-arid regions of South Africa. According to Esselink et al. [127], livestock strongly limit invasive species spread and enable the development of shorter grasses in its natural environment. The study of Reiner and Craig [123] addressed the statement that livestock grazing is a conservation-compatible land use on spreads with conservation easements. In the recent past, many studies have been carried out with the aim of controlling invasive species, but with poor results. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of information in the literature concerning the control of invasive alien species. Livestock grazing is still considered the main solution to this problem; however, there is little research on the control of browsable alien invasive plants.

11. Summary

The control of invasive alien species is based on their contribution to the ecosystem and also on the negative impact associated with the species. For the development of better control, approaches, well-trained personnel, and knowledge of the species and the spreading process are very important. As far as Prosopis is concerned, their nutritive value to livestock makes it a valuable component of the rangelands for resource-constrained communal farmers. It is therefore important to develop utilisation strategies that consider the effective age or stage of development for the maximum control of spread and are also of benefit to ruminants. Therefore, managing the spread of these invasive species can be accomplished by the use of livestock as biological control while improving the productivity of ruminant animals. There is also a need to balance its use as a protein supplement and its negative impact on herbaceous biomass production. Additional control strategies such as physical ones can be applied to reduce the number of Prosopis plants to a level where optimum herbaceous biomass for livestock production can be achieved and the potential impact on soil erosion is minimised. Hence, these invasive Prosopis species control will assist in maximising the grazing capacity while maintaining the species diversity in arid and semi-arid environments.

Author Contributions

K.E.R., H.S.M., B.M., O.H., N.H.M. contributed equally to the writing of the review article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Le Maitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Gelderblom, C.M.; Bailey, C.; Chapman, R.A.; Nel, J.A. Invasive alien trees and water resources in South Africa: Case studies of the costs and benefits of management. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 160, 43–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shackleton, S.; Kirby, D.; Gambiza, J. Invasive plants–friends or foes? Contribution of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) to livelihoods in Makana Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 2011, 28, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Visser, N. Potential Controls for Prosopis in the Arid and Semi-Arid Parts of the Karoo—A Literature Review; The Department of Agriculture: Western Cape, South Africa, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 3–6.
  4. Zimmermann, H.G. Biological control of mesquite, Prosopis spp. (Fabaceae), in South Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1991, 37, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shiferaw, H.; Teketay, D.; Nemomissa, S.; Assefa, F. Some biological characteristics that foster the invasion of Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. at Middle Awash Rift Valley Area, north-eastern Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ. 2004, 58, 135–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zimmermann, H.G.; Hoffmann, J.H.; Witt, A.B.R. A South African perspective on Prosopis. Biocontrol. News Inf. 2006, 27, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zachariades, C.; Hoffmann, J.H.; Roberts, A.P. Biological control of mesquite (Prosopis species) (Fabaceae) in South Africa. Afr. Entomol. 2011, 19, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wild, A.J.; du Plessis, C.G. Information Sheets: Prosopis; Department of Agriculture: Western Cape, South Africa, 2007. Available online: http://www.elsenburg.com/info/els/043/043e.html (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  9. Haile, Z.M. Invasion of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC and Rural Livelihoods. Master’s Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  10. Van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Marais, C.; Magadlela, D. The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: Examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2001, 3, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shackleton, R.T.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Pasiecznik, N.M.; Richardson, D.M. Prosopis: A global assessment of the biogeography, benefits, impacts and management of one of the world’s worst woody invasive plant taxa. AoB Plants 2014, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pasiecznik, N.M.; Felker, P.; Harris, P.J.; Harsh, L.; Cruz, G.; Tewari, J.C.; Cadoret, K.; Maldonado, L.J. The Prosopis juliflora-Prosopis pallida Complex: A Monograph; HDRA: Coventry, UK, 2001; p. 172. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lloyd, J.W.; van den Berg, E.C.; Badenhorst, N.C. Mapping the Spatial Distribution and Biomass of Prosopis in the Northern Cape Province, South Africa, with the Aid of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems; Report No. GW/A/98/68; Agricultural Research Council—Institute for Soil, Climate and Water: Pretoria, South Africa, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pasiecznik, N.M. Prosopis-pest or providence, weed or wonder tree? ETFRN News 1999, 28, 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  15. Matthews, S.; Brand, K. The Growing Danger of Invasive Alien Species; The Global Invasive Species Program: Cape Town, South Africa, 2004; p. 79. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ditlhogo, M.K.; Setshogo, M.P.; Mosweunyane, G. Comparative nutritive value of an invasive exotic plant species, Prosopis glandulosa Torr. var. glandulosa, and five indigenous plant species commonly browsed by small stock in the BORAVAST area, south-western Botswana. Botsw. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. 2020, 14, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zengeya, T.; Ivey, P.; Woodford, D.J.; Weyl, O.; Novlona, A.; Shackleton, R.T.; Richardson, D.; van Wilgen, B. Managing conflict generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade. Bothalia Afr. Biodivers. Conserv. 2017, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dunbar, K.R.; Facelli, J.M. The impact of a novel invasive species, Orbea variegata (African carrion flower), on the chenopod shrublands of South Australia. J. Arid Environ. 1999, 41, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vitousek, P.M.; D’antonio, C.M.; Loope, L.L.; Rejmanek, M.; Westbrooks, R. Introduced species: A significant component of human-caused global change. N. Z. J. Ecol. 1997, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shackleton, R.T.; Shackleton, C.M.; Kull, C.A. The role of invasive alien species in shaping local livelihoods and human well-being: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shackleton, R.T.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. Towards a national strategy to optimise the management of a widespread invasive tree (Prosopis species; mesquite) in South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dean, W.R.J.; Anderson, M.D.; Milton, S.J.; Anderson, T.A. Avian assemblages in native Acacia and alien Prosopis drainage line woodland in the Kalahari, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2002, 51, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shackleton, R.T.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. The impact of invasive alien Prosopis species (mesquite) on native plants in different environments in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2015, 97, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wise, R.M.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Le Maitre, D.C. Costs, benefits and management options for an invasive alien tree species: The case of mesquite in the Northern Cape, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 84, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stafford, W.; Birch, C.; Etter, H.; Blanchard, R.; Mudavanhu, S.; Angelstam, P.; Blignaut, J.; Ferreira, L.; Marais, C. The economics of landscape restoration: Benefits of controlling bush encroachment and invasive plant species in South Africa and Namibia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Inderjit, S. Plant invasions: Habitat invasibility and dominance of invasive plant species. Plant Soil. 2005, 277, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Richardson, D.M.; Hui, C.; Nunez, M.A.; Pauchardm, A. Tree invasions: Patterns, processes, challenges and opportunities. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rejmánek, M.; Richardson, D.M. Trees and shrubs as invasive alien species—2013 update of the global database. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19, 1093–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mampholo, R.K. To Determine the Extent of Bush Encroachment with Focus on Prosopis Species on Selected Farms in the Vryburg District of North West Province. Master’s Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Coppock, D.L.; Aboud, A.A.; Kisoyan, P.K. Agro-Pastoralists’ Wrath for the Prosopis tree: The Case of the Il Chamus of Baringo District, Kenya. Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program; Research Brief 05–02-PARIMA; University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. Beck, K.G.; Zimmerman, K.; Schardt, J.D.; Stone, J.; Lukens, R.R.; Reichard, S.; Randall, J.; Cangelosi, A.A.; Cooper, D.; Thompson, J.P. Invasive species defined in a policy context: Recommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2008, 1, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Le Maitre, D.C.; Versfeld, D.B.; Chapman, R.A. Impact of invading alien plants on surface water resources in South Africa: A preliminary assessment. Water 2000, 26, 397–408. [Google Scholar]
  33. Versfeld, D.B.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Chapman, R.A. Alien Invading Plants and Water Resources in South Africa; Report No. TT 99/98; Water Research Commission Publisher: Pretoria, South Africa, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nel, J.L.; Richardson, D.M.; Rouget, M.; Mgidi, T.N.; Mdzeke, N.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Schonegevel, L.; Henderson, L.; Neser, S. A proposed classification of invasive alien plant species in South Africa: Towards prioritising species and areas for management action. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Den Berg, E.C. Detection, Quantification and Monitoring Prosopis spp. in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Master’s Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  36. Henderson, L. Invasive, naturalized and casual alien plants in southern Africa: A summary based on the Southern African Plant Invaders Atlas (SAPIA). Bothalia 2007, 37, 215–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Robertson, M.P.; Henderson, L.; Higgins, S.I.; Fairbanks, D.H.K.; Zimmermann, H.G.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Shackleton, C.M.; Villet, M.H.; Hoffmann, J.H.; Palmer, A.R.; et al. A proposed prioritization system for the management of invasive alien plants in South Africa: Research in action. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2003, 99, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, S.C. Longevity of velvet mesquite seed in the soil. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 1970, 23, 69–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roberts, A.P. Biological Control of Alien Invasive Mesquite Species (Prosopis) in South Africa: The Role of Introduced Seed-Feeding Bruchids. Doctoral Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ahmed, N. Mesquite (Devi): Prosopis juliflora A Potential Source of Livelihood in Thar; China Agricultural University: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  41. Salazar, P.C.; Navarro-Cerrillo, R.M.; Grados, N.; Cruz, G.; Barrón, V.; Villar, R. Tree size and leaf traits determine the fertility island effect in Prosopis pallida dryland forest in Northern Peru. Plant Soil. 2019, 437, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lauenstein, D.A.L.; Fernández, M.E.; Verga, A.R. Drought stress tolerance of Prosopis chilensis and Prosopis flexuosa species and their hybrids. Trees 2013, 27, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Villagra, P.E.; Vilela, A.; Giordano, C.; Alvarez, J.A. Ecophysiology of Prosopis species from the Arid Lands of Argentina: What do we know about adaptation to stressful environments? Desert Plants 2009, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Carevic, F.C. The role of ecophysiological studies in the genus Prosopis: Implications for the conservation of drought-prone species. Idesia 2014, 32, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Reginato, M.; Sgroy, V.; Llanes, A.; Cassán, F.; Luna, V. The American halophyte Prosopis strombulifera, a new potential source to confer salt tolerance to crops. In Crop Production for Agricultural Improvement; Ashraf, M., Öztürk, M., Ahmad, M., Aksoy, A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 115–143. [Google Scholar]
  46. Valadez, M.; Felker, P.; Degano, C. Evaluation of Argentine and Peruvian Prosopis germplasm for growth at seawater salinities. J. Arid Environ. 2003, 55, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ríos-Gómez, R.; Salas-García, C.E.; Monroy-Ata, A.; Solano, E. Salinity effect on Prosopis laevigata seedlings. Terra Latinoam. 2010, 28, 99–107. [Google Scholar]
  48. Devinar, G.; Llanes, A.; Masciarelli, O.; Luna, V. Different relative humidity conditions combined with chloride and sulfate salinity treatments modify abscisic acid and salicylic acid levels in the halophyte Prosopis strombulifera. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 70, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Muturi, G.M.; Poorter, L.; Mohren, G.M.J.; Kigomo, B.N. Ecological impact of Prosopis species invasion in Turkwel riverine forest, Kenya. J. Arid Environ. 2013, 92, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Belton, T. Management Strategy for Mexican Thorn (Prosopis juliflora) on Ascension Island: An Assessment of this Species, and Recommendations for Management; RSPB: Bedfordshire, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  51. Schachtschneider, K.; February, E.C. Impact of Prosopis invasion on a keystone tree species in the Kalahari Desert. Plant Ecol. 2013, 214, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shackleton, R.T.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Richardson, D.M. Prosopis invasions in South Africa: Population structures and impacts on native tree population stability. J. Arid Environ. 2015, 114, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Geesing, D.; Al-Khawlani, A.; Abba, M.L. Management of introduced Prosopis species: Can economic exploitation control an invasive species? Unasylva 2004, 217, 289–299. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ndhlovu, T.; Milton-Dean, S.J.; Esler, K.J. Impact of Prosopis (mesquite) invasion and clearing on the grazing capacity of semiarid Nama Karoo rangeland, South Africa. Afr. J. Range For. Sci. 2011, 28, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ayanu, Y.; Jentsch, A.; Müller-Mahn, D.; Rettberg, S.; Romankiewicz, C.; Koellner, T. Ecosystem engineer unleashed: Prosopis juliflora threatening ecosystem services? Reg. Env. Chang. 2014, 15, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Richardson, D.M.; Pyšek, P.; Rejmánek, M.; Barbour, M.G.; Panetta, F.D.; West, C.J. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Divers. Distrib. 2000, 6, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Joshi, C.M.; de Leeuw, J.; van Duren, I.C. Remote sensing and GIS applications for mapping and spatial modelling of invasive species. In Proceedings of the ISPRS 2004 XXth ISPRS Congress: Geo-Imagery Bridging Continents, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–23 July 2004; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS): Hannover, Germany, 2004; pp. 669–677. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kahi, H.C.; Ngugi, R.K.; Mureithi, S.M.; Ng’ethe, J.C. The canopy effects of Prosopis juliflora (dc.) and Acacia tortilis (hayne) trees on herbaceous plants species and soil physico-chemical properties in Njemps flats, Kenya. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst 2009, 10, 441–449. [Google Scholar]
  59. Harding, G.B. The Genus Prosopis spp. as an Invasive alien in South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Port Elizabeth, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  60. Felker, P. Management, Use and Control of Prosopis in Yemen; Mission Report, Project Number: TCP/YEM/0169 (A); Mission Report DFID, UK funded Project: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lowe, S.; Browne, M.; Boudjelas, S.; de Poorter, M. 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species: A Selection from the Global Invasive Species Database; Invasive Species Specialist Group: Auckland, New Zealand, 2000; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sawal, R.; Ratan, R.; Yadav, S. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed resource for livestock: A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 17, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mahmood, K.; Chughtai, M.I.; Awan, A.R.; Waheed, R.A. Biomass production of some salt tolerant tree species grown in different ecological zones of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  64. Shackleton, S.E.; Shackleton, R.T. Local knowledge regarding ecosystem services and disservices from invasive alien plants in the arid Kalahari, South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2018, 159, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Paul, B.K.; Koge, J.; Maass, B.L.; Notenbaert, A.; Peters, M.; Groot, J.C.; Tittonell, P. Tropical forage technologies can deliver multiple benefits in Sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lefroy, E.C.; Dann, P.; Widlin, J.H.; Wesley, A.; Smith, R.N.; McGowan, A.A. Trees and shrubs as a source of fodder in Australia. Agrof. Syst. 1992, 20, 117–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Felker, P.; Moss, J. Prosopis: Semiarid fuelwood and forage tree building consensus for the disenfranchised. Constitution 1996, 13, 15. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mlambo, V.; Smith, T.; Owen, E.; Mould, F.L.; Sikosana, J.L.N.; Mueller-Harvey, I. Tanniniferous Dichrostachys cinerea fruits do not require detoxification for goat nutrition: In sacco and in vivo evaluations. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2004, 90, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. De Barros, N.A.M.T.; Bai, C.A.G.; Fonseca, F.C.E. Use of Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC and cassava (Manihot utilissima Pohl) for confined sheep feeding during the dry season. In The Current State of Knowledge on Prosopis juliflora, Proceedings of the II International Conference on Prosopis, Recife, Brazil, 25–29 August 1986; Mario, A.H., Julio, C.S., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  70. Silbert, M. A Mesquite Pod Industry in Central Mexico: An Economic Development Alternative; Felker, P., Moss, J., Eds.; Prosopis: Semi-Arid Fuelwood and Forage Tree; National Academy of Sciences, Building Consensus for the Disen-Franchised: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 11–660. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mahgoub, O.; Isam, T.K.; Neil, E.; Dawood, S.A.; Naseeb, M.A.; Abdullah, S.A.; Kanthi, A. Evaluation of Meskit (Prosopis juliflora) pods as a feed for goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 121, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khobondo, J.O.; Kingori, A.M.; Manhique, A. Effect of incorporation of ground Prosopis juliflora pods in layer diet on weight gain, egg production, and natural antibody titer in KALRO genetically improved indigenous chicken. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 2213–2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Al-Harthi, M.A.; Attia, Y.A.; Al-Sagan, A.A.; Elgandy, M.F. Nutrients profile, protein quality and energy value of whole Prosopis pods meal as a feedstuff for poultry feeding. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 18, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Girma, M.; Urge, M.; Animut, G. Ground Prosopis juliflora pods as feed ingredient in poultry diet: Effects on growth and carcass characteristics of broilers. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2011, 10, 970–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Ali, A.S.; Tudsri, S.; Rungmekarat, S.; Kaewtrakulpong, K. Effect of feeding Prosopis juliflora pods and leaves on performance and carcass characteristics of Afar sheep. Kasetsart J. Nat. Sci. 2012, 46, 871–881. [Google Scholar]
  76. Cattaneo, F.; Costamagna, M.S.; Zampini, I.C.; Sayago, J.; Alberto, M.R.; Chamorro, V.; Pazos, A.; Thomas-Valdés, S.; Schmeda-Hirschmann, G.; Isla, M.I. Flour from Prosopis alba cotyledons: A natural source of nutrient and bioactive phytochemicals. Food Chem. 2016, 208, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Henciya, S.; Seturaman, P.; James, A.R.; Tsai, Y.H.; Nikam, R.; Wu, Y.C.; Dahms, H.U.; Chang, F.R. Biopharmaceutical potentials of Prosopis spp. (Mimosaceae, Leguminosa). J. Food Drug Anal. 2017, 25, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wood, C.D.; Matthewman, R.; Badve, V.C.; Conroy, C. A review of the nutritive value of dry season feeds for ruminants in Southern Rajasthan. BAIF Bull. 2000, 1–8. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d51e5274a31e00017b8/R6995d.pdf. (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  79. Gutteridge, R.C.; Shelton, H.M. Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture; The Tropical Grassland Society of Australia Inc.: Queensland, Australia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  80. Baptista, R. Nutritional Quality of Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and Potential Toxicosis in Sheep. Master’s Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  81. Batista, A.M.; Mustafa, A.F.; McKinnon, J.J.; Kermasha, S. In situ ruminal and intestinal nutrient digestibilities of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) pods. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2002, 100, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mohammadabadi, T.; Chaji, M. In vitro gas production and in situ degradation of mesquite leaves and pods in Arabian camels in Iran. J. Camelid Sci. 2018, 11, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  83. Choge, S.K.; Pasiecznik, N.M.; Harvey, M.; Wright, J.; Awan, S.Z.; Harris, P.J.C. Prosopis pods as human food, with special reference to Kenya. Water Sa 2007, 33, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Kebede, Y.D. The Nutritive Value of Zizyphus spina-christi (L.) Wild. Leaves to Goats in the Semi-Arid Area of Kalu District, South Wello, Ethiopia. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  85. Kipchirchir, K.O. Effects of Prosopis juliflora Seedpod Meal Supplement on Weight Gain of Weaner Galla Goats. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  86. Eldaw, M.Y. Nutritional Value of Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) Pods and Dietary Effects on Physiological Performance of Sudanese Nubian Goats kids. Ph.D. Thesis, Sudan University of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  87. Astudillo, L.; Schmeda-Hirschmann, G.; Herrera, J.P.; Cortés, M. Proximate composition and biological activity of Chilean Prosopis species. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 567–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mohamed, A.; Izeldin, B.; Jehan, A.B.; Afrah, M.; Maha, E.K.; Mudawi, E. Potential of Prosopis chilensis (Molina) stuntz as a non-conventional animal feed in the dry lands of Sudan. Int. J. Plant Anim. Environ. Sci. 2014, 4, 673–676. [Google Scholar]
  89. Nielsen, T.R.; Kuete, V.; Jäger, A.K.; Meyer, J.J.M.; Lall, N. Antimicrobial activity of selected South African medicinal plants. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012, 12, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Elmezughi, J.; Shittu, H.; Clements, C.; Edrada-Ebel, R.A.; Seidel, V.; Gray, A. Bioactive natural compounds from Prosopis africana and Abies nobili. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2013, 3, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Preeti, K.; Avatar, S.R.; Mala, A. Pharmacology and therapeutic applications of Prosopis juliflora: A review. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 3, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ribaski, J. Agroforestry system combining P. juliflora and buffel grass in the Brazilian semi-arid region: Preliminary results . In The Current State of Knowledge on Prosopis juliflora, Proceedings of the II International Conference on Prosopis, Recife, Brazil, 25–29 August 1986; Mario, A.H., Julio, C.S., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wickens, K.; Pennacchio, M. A search for novel biologically active compounds in the phyllodes of Acacia species. Conserv. Sci. W. Aust. 2002, 4, 139–144. [Google Scholar]
  94. Dahms, H.; Sethuraman, P. Pharmacological potentials of phenolic compounds from Prosopis spp.—A review. J. Coast Life Med. 2014, 2, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kohli, R.K.; Batish, D.R.; Singh, H.P.; Dogra, K.S. Status, invasiveness and environmental threats of three tropical American invasive weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus L., Ageratum conyzoides L., Lantana camara L.) in India. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 1501–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kohli, R.K.; Batish, D.R.; Singh, J.S.; Singh, H.P.; Bhatt, J.R.; Singh, S.P.; Tripathi, R.S. Plant invasion in India: An overview. In Invasive Alien Plants: An Ecological Appraisal for the Indian Subcontinent; Bhatt, J.R., Singh, J.S., Singh, S.P., Tripathi, R.S., Kohli, R.K., Eds.; CABI: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  97. Bartle, J.; Cooper, D.; Olsen, G.; Carslake, J. Acacia species as large-scale crop plants in the Western Australian wheatbelt. Conserv. Sci. West. Aust. 2002, 4, 96–108. [Google Scholar]
  98. Bargali, K.; Bargali, S.S. Acacia nilotica: A multipurpose leguminous plant. Nat. Sci. 2009, 7, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  99. Faramawy, F.M. Response of Prosopis Chilensis to biofertilization under calcareous soil of RasSudr. 2–Pod production. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2014, 59, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Lyon, C.K.; Gumbmann, M.R.; Becker, R. Value of mesquite leaves as forage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1988, 44, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Álvarez-Fuentes, G.; García-López, J.C.; Pinos-Rodríguez, J.M.; Aguirre-Rivera, J.R.; Jasso-Pineda, Y.; Celestino-Santillán, S.G. Effects of feeding the seeds of Prosopis laevigata, Acacia schaffneri and Ceratonia siliqua on the performance of broiler chicks. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 42, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Mahgoub, O.; Kadim, I.T.; Al-Saqry, N.M.; Al-Ajmi, D.S.; Al-Abri, A.S.; Richie, A.R.; Annamalai, K.; Forsberg, N.E. Effects of replacing Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) hay with ghaf (Prosopis cineraria) pods on performance of Omani native sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2004, 36, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Elahi, M.Y.; Nia, M.M.; Salem, A.Z.; Mansouri, H.; Olivares-Pérez, J.; Cerrillo-Soto, M.A.; Kholif, A.E. Effect of polyethylene glycol on in vitro gas production kinetics of Prosopis cineraria leaves at different growth stages. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 13, 3175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Medupi, M. Effect of Species on the Chemical Composition of Browse Species Found in Selected Communal Areas of Mafikeng Municipality. Master’s Thesis, North West University, Mafikeng, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  105. Phatudi, K.G.G. Nutritional Composition and Potential of Leaves from Selected Indigenous Browse Tree Species as a Winter Supplement to Grass Hay in Ruminants. Master’s Thesis, North West University, Mafikeng, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  106. Anhwange, B.A.; Kyenge, B.A.; Kukwa, R.E.; Ishwa, B. Chemical Analysis of Prosopis Africana (Guill &Perr.) Seeds. Nig. Annal. Pure Appl. Sci. 2020, 3, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Salah, O.; Yagi, S. Nutritional composition of Prosopis chilensis (Molina) Stuntz leaves and pods from Sudan. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 2, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  108. Díaz-Batalla, L.; Hernández-Uribe, J.P.; Gutiérrez-Dorado, R.; Téllez-Jurado, A.; Castro-Rosas, J.; Pérez-Cadena, R.; Gómez-Aldapa, C.A. Nutritional characterization of Prosopis laevigata Legume tree (Mesquite) seed flour and the effect of extrusion cooking on its bioactive components. Foods 2018, 7, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Boval, M.; Renaudeau, D. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora). Feedipedia, a Programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. 2015. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/554 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
  110. Ehsen, S.; Qasim, M.; Abideen, Z.; Rizvi, R.F.; Gul, B.; Ansari, R.; Khan, M.A. Secondary metabolites as anti-nutritional factors in locally used halophytic forage/fodder. Pak. J. Bot. 2016, 48, 629–636. [Google Scholar]
  111. Makkar, H.A.; Becker, K. Nutrional value and antinutritional components of whole and ethanol extracted Moringa oleifera leaves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 63, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Aganga, A.A.; Tshwenyane, S.O. Feeding values and anti-nutritive factors of forage tree legumes. Pak. J. Nutr. 2003, 2, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Thomas, N.A. The Potential of Pods from Tree Legumes as Supplement to Low Quality Roughages for Ruminants. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  114. Cardozo, M.L.; Ordoñez, R.M.; Zampini, I.C.; Cuello, A.S.; Dibenedetto, G.; Isla, M.I. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity, genotoxicity and polyphenol content of non-conventional foods: Prosopis flour. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1505–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bhatta, R.; Shinde, A.K.; Vaithiyanathan, S.; Sankhyan, S.K.; Verma, D.L. Effect of polyethylene glycol-6000 on nutrient intake, digestion and growth of kids browsing Prosopis cineraria. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2002, 101, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Panche, A.N.; Diwan, A.D.; Chandra, S.R. Flavonoids: An overview. J. Nutr. Sci. 2016, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Young, J.E.; Nguyen, T.; Ly, C.; Jarman, S.; Diep, D.; Pham, C.; Pesek, J.J.; Matyska, M.T.; Takeoka, G.R. LC-MS characterization of Mesquite flour constituents. LC GC Eur. 2017, 30, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  118. Amarowicz, R.; Pegg, R.B. Legumes as a source of natural antioxidants. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2008, 110, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Srinivas, B.; Chaturvedi, O.H. Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC. as cattle feed: Toxicity and palatability of different parts, and fermentation kinetics in vitro. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2019, 57, 553–556. [Google Scholar]
  120. Chovatiya, S.; Bhatt, S.; Shah, A.; Dube, P. An investigation on the use of Prosopis juliflora pods as a carbohydrate source supplemented with probiotics in the diet of Labeo rohita fingerlings. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2018, 17, 327–345. [Google Scholar]
  121. Silliman, B.R.; Mozdzer, T.; Angelini, C.; Brundage, J.E.; Esselink, P.; Bakker, J.P.; Gedan, K.B.; van de Koppel, J.; Baldwin, A.H. Livestock as a potential biological control agent for an invasive wetland plant. Peerj 2014, 2, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: Opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2004, 23, 431–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Reiner, R.; Craig, A. Conservation easements in California blue oak woodlands: Testing the assumption of livestock grazing as a compatible use. Nat. Areas J. 2011, 31, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Mayo, J.M. The Effects of Goats Grazing on Sericea lespedeza. In Symposium Proceedings. Sericea Lespedeza and the Future of Invasive Species; Kansas State University Department of Agronomy: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2000; pp. 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  125. Rathfon, R.A.; Greenler, S.M.; Jenkins, M.A. Effects of prescribed grazing by goats on non-native invasive shrubs and native plant species in a mixed-hardwood forest. Restor. Ecol. 2021, e13361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Nyamukanza, C.C.; Scogings, P.F. Sprout selection and performance of goats fed Acacia karroo coppices in the False Thornveld of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 38, 83–90. [Google Scholar]
  127. Esselink, P.; Fresco, L.F.; Dijkema, K.S. Vegetation change in a man-made salt marsh affected by a reduction in both grazing and drainage. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2002, 5, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 07369 g001 550
Figure 1. Prosopis velutina, Mafikeng municipality NW province. Photo taken by K.E. and H.S.
Figure 1. Prosopis velutina, Mafikeng municipality NW province. Photo taken by K.E. and H.S.
Sustainability 13 07369 g001
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition of Prosopis species (% of DM).
Table 1. Chemical composition of Prosopis species (% of DM).
SpeciesPPDMCPCFAshOMNDFADFADLReferences
P. chilensisP82.07.112.63.0----[99]
P. chilensisL-18.325.14.5-37.528.8-[100]
P. julifloraP88.418.5-5.283.251.829.83.2[85]
P. julifloraL92.510.423.79.1-48.435.113.1[82]
P laevigataP92.539.47.65.1-32.911.8-[101]
P. velutinaL-20.227.05.5-41.833.1-[100]
P. pallidaP85.99.1-3.9----[12]
P. cinerariaP91.013.514.35.2--21.4-[102]
P. cinerariaL93.210.7-13.886.245.829.0-[103]
PP: plant part, P: pods, L: leaves, DM: dry matter, CP: crude protein, CF: crude fibre, OM: organic matter, NDF: neutral detergent fibre, ADF: acid detergent fibre, ADL: acid detergent lignin.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition (g/kg DM, unless otherwise stated) of Prosopis velutina leaves harvested around Mafikeng North West province, South Africa.
Table 2. Chemical composition (g/kg DM, unless otherwise stated) of Prosopis velutina leaves harvested around Mafikeng North West province, South Africa.
DM g/kgOM CP NDFADF ADLReferences
909.7884.2364.4255.2251.2157.4[104]
967.89925.01117.9515.2345.1232.7[105]
DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, CP: crude protein, NDF: neutral detergent fibre, ADF: acid detergent fibre, ADL: acid detergent lignin.
Table
Table 3. Mineral concentration (ppm DM) of Prosopis species Pods.
Table 3. Mineral concentration (ppm DM) of Prosopis species Pods.
SpeciesCaPKMgCuFeNaReferences
P. chilensis800019001850018001255996[88]
P. juliflora500020009000760409951[85]
P. glandulosa60228054040 [16]
P. pallida800 26500900 3001100[83]
Ca: calcium, P: phosphorus, K: potassium, Mg: magnesium, Cu: copper, Fe: iron, Na: sodium.
Table
Table 4. Amino acid levels of Prosopis species on different plant parts.
Table 4. Amino acid levels of Prosopis species on different plant parts.
Species PPThrValMetIleLeuPheHisLysArgTryProAspGluUnitsRef
P. pallidaP4.687.800.573.267.942.981.994.264.820.8923.408.5110.07g/100 g[12]
P. africanaS2.254.131.863.4613.264.8232.162.773.623.244.224.584.68mg/100 g[106]
P. albaL1.201.260.301.201.580.340.801.685.50 4.303.173.48g/16 gN[87]
P. chilensisP8.8113.764.1440.4119.0712.549.6614.75 21.48 g/100 g[107]
P. laevigataS29.834.89.129.269.135.624.254.8112.2 62.683.41172mg/g[108]
P. chilensisL2.817.111.314.518.253.204.442.94 8.88 g/100 g[107]
P. juliforaP0.460.710.200.441.330.710.550.812.690.22 g/100 g[109]
PP: plant part, S: seeds, L: leaves, P: pods, Thr: threonine, Val: valine, Met: methionine, Ile: isoleucine, Leu: leucine, Phe: phenylalanine, His: histidine, Lys: lysine, Arg: arginine, Try: tryptophan, Pro: proline, Asp: aspartic acid, Glu: glutamic acid, Ref: references.
Table
Table 5. Anti-nutritional factors (% DM) of Prosopis species plant parts.
Table 5. Anti-nutritional factors (% DM) of Prosopis species plant parts.
SpeciesPPTanninsSaponinsOxalatesFlavanoidsAlkaloidsNitratesPhenolsSource
P. glandulosaL0.6461.6930.7210.755 0.3560.127[110]
P. juliforaP0.9730.393 0.08 0.582[119,120]
P. cinerariaL5.7511.3240.3611.113 0.2240.331[110]
PP: plant part, L: leaves, P: pods
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mudau, H.S.; Moyo, B.; Hawu, O.; Msiza, N.H. Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369

AMA Style

Ravhuhali KE, Mudau HS, Moyo B, Hawu O, Msiza NH. Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ravhuhali, Khuliso Emmanuel, Humbelani Silas Mudau, Bethwell Moyo, Onke Hawu, and Ntokozo Happy Msiza. 2021. "Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369

APA Style

Ravhuhali, K. E., Mudau, H. S., Moyo, B., Hawu, O., & Msiza, N. H. (2021). Prosopis Species—An Invasive Species and a Potential Source of Browse for Livestock in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa. Sustainability, 13(13), 7369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137369

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop