Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:47:25.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Irrigation on Biomass Production of 32 Prosopis (Mesquite) Accessions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Peter Felker ,
G. H. Cannell ,
J. F. Osborn ,
P. R. Clark  and
P. Nash
Peter Felker
Affiliation:
Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, Texas 78363USA
G. H. Cannell
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
J. F. Osborn
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
P. R. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
P. Nash
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Thirty-two Prosopis accessions were studied and biomass production (dry matter) determined for 27 of them, which were irrigated when the soil moisture tension reached 60, 200, or 500 kPa. Three seasons after transplanting (i.e. after 2½ years) the trees were harvested, weighed, and sub-sampled for moisture content determinations. Little difference was observed in productivity among irrigation treatments. A 20-fold range in biomass productivity occurred among accessions; Prosopis chilensis (0009) from Argentina gave the greatest production of 13.4 t ha−1 a−1. The water use efficiency of US rangeland accessions ranged from 2300–2600 kg H2O kg dry matter−1. P. chilensis (0009) in the driest irrigation treatment had a water use efficiency of 345 kg H2O kg dry matter−1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 187 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anon. (1980). Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production. Washington, DC: US National Academy of Sciences, 236 p.Google Scholar
Briggs, L. J. & Shantz, H. L. (1914). Relative water requirements of plants. Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 1–64.Google Scholar
Burkart, A. (1976). A monograph of the genus Prosopis (Leguminosae subfam. Mimosoideae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 57:217–249, 450–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookston, R. K., Fox, C. A., Hill, D. S. & Moss, D. N. (1978). Agronomic cropping for maximum bio- mass production. Agronomy Journal 70:899–902.Google Scholar
Dwyer, D. D. & DeGarmo, H. C. (1970). Greenhouse productivity and water use efficiency of selected desert shrubs and grasses under four soil moisture levels. New Mexico State University Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 570: 1–15.Google Scholar
Felker, P. (1979). Mesquite – An all purpose arid land tree. In New Agricultural Crops (Ed. Ritchie, G. A.) American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium. Volume 38. Boulder, CO: West-view Press.Google Scholar
Felker, P., Cannell, G. H. & Clark, P. R. (1981a). Variation in growth among 13 Prosopis (mesquite) species. Experimental Agriculture 17:209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felker, P., Clark, P. R., Laag, A. E. & Pratt, P. F. (1981b). Salinity tolerance of the tree legumes mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana, P. velutina and P. articulata), algarrobo (P. chilensis), kiawe (P. pallida) and tamarugo (P. tamarugo) grown in sand culture on nitrogen-free media. Plant and Soil 61: 311–317.Google Scholar
Felker, P., Clark, P. R., Osborn, J. F. & Cannell, G. H. (1982a). Biomass estimation in a young stand of mesquite (Prosopis spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota), palo verde (Cercidium floridium and Parkinsonia aculeata) and leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala). Journal of Range Management 35: 87–89.Google Scholar
Felker, P., Clark, P. R., Nash, P., Osborn, J. F. & Cannell, G. H. (1982b). Screening Prosopis (mesquite) for cold tolerance. Forest Science (in press).Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. & Wilson, G. L. (1972). Photosynthesis of tropical pasture plants. IV. Basis and conse- quences of differences between grasses and legumes. Australian Journal of Biological Science 25: 1133–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnies, W. G. & Arnold, J. F. (1939). Relative water requirement of Arizona range plants. Technical Bulletin 80, University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station 167–245.Google Scholar
Webb, W., Szarek, S., Lauenroth, W. & Kinerson, R. (1978). Primary productivity and water use in native forest, grassland, and desert ecosystems. Ecology 59: 1239–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zavitkovski, J. (1981). Small plots with unplanted plot border can distort data in biomass production studies. Canadian Jounal of Forestry Research 11: 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar