Jump to content

Talk:Mesquite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sec399.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cayleyp399.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

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

As a matter of principle, too, the name of the genus should not be redirected to the name of one group of species. In South America there are many species of Prosopis (cf Prosopis alba), usually called algarrobo (the Spanish name for the carob tree). Prosopis should be a genus page with links here and to the algarrobo trees' articles. --Pablo D. Flores 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you are on the right track to improving this. This page could stay for information specifically on "mesquite" as defined separate from the entire genus - Marshman 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that "mesquite" comes from Nahuatl "mizquitl", then enumerates its habitat range, apparently at quite a distance from any Nahuatl territory (Mesoamerica, according to the relevant WP article). How can that be?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water usage (Mesquite and groundwater depletion)

[edit]

The article says:

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a source, even though its a little late. http://www.ucratx.org/A.pdf It says that removing mesquite could increase water yield in the Concho River valley by 33,000 acre-feet per year while avg human consumption is only 15,000 acre-feet per year. MonolithicNinja 03:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference.
I see where the report mentions the (estimated) 33,000 acre-feet/year increase. It says that would be a five-fold increase over current levels in that watershed. If you check the references, the report is quoting another report (that has yet to be issued) from the Southwest Farm Press (southwestfarmpress.com). These two together -- an astounding increase and an industry mag -- make me a little skeptical.
I don't see the 15,000 acre-feet/year figure for human use. What page did you see this? On page 2, there is a figure of 15,000,000 acre-feet/year water-use by humans. But that's state-wide -- not just UCRA's area, and not the area studied by the Southwest Farm Press.
Thanks for the help. If I get a chance, I'll check up on some of the other references in the UCRA report. Or if you get a chance, beat me to it! Lunch 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if water depletion is variable, since the growth period is only a few weeks out of the year beginning in April and usually ending in mid-June. If moisture is abundant, new leaves can appear later in the season. Adult honey mesquite (8-12 ft. tall) in north Texas were found to use up to 20 gallons of water per day during ideal mid-summer growing conditions and adequate soil moisture (Ansley et al. 1991a) Many studies have shown that grass production increases following control of mesquite (Dahl et al. 1978, Bedunah and Sosebee 1984). However, response is highly variable and dependent on many factors such as density of mesquite prior to treatment, effectiveness of treatment, soil type, and precipitation. In south Texas, mesquite colonizes grasslands, then serves as a nurse plant for other shrub species that establish in its understory (Archer 1989).[1] Also, from the same source: The concept of complete removal is questionable both economically and environmentally. Mesquite has many benefits to the ecosystem when maintained at moderate densities (i.e., as a savanna) or as a mosaic of thickets, grasslands and savannas (Ansley et al. 1996). Such benefits include enhanced soil fertility, shade for livestock, wildlife habitat, protection for some plant species, modified microclimate for cool-season plant species, and the potential for wood products. I didn't want to scatter all these points, using the same source. Let me know if that was improper.69.6.162.160 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson[reply]

To add a clarifying remark to my last comments: My impression from the article and from comments was that there is an assumption, I believe to be mistaken, that water usage by the mesquite is constant. Reading further, I was confused by the mention of the cite number #1[2] which links to the tamirex. Tamirex is the same as mesquite through Class, but otherwise is a different plant. Water usage and the degree to which it is considered a nuisance could vary quite a bit, especially if you include the evergreen version. If the tamirex is a great nuisance, mostly near streams, then the writers of these articles should not imply that all tamirex and mesquites are a nuisance in all situations. 69.6.162.160 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson[reply]
Thanks for your comments.
To add a little more, salt cedar (tamarisk) is a plant native to dry areas of Africa and Asia; mesquite is native to dry areas of North America. (Despite being in the same taxonomic class - shared by thousands of plants - they are very different plants.) Salt cedar in North America is considered an invasive plant. Lunch 03:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesquite inrtroduced into Australia and now recognised as a "weed of national significance."

[edit]

The entry currently lists the benefits of mesquite but makes little reference to the adverse effects of this plant. May I suggest that the entry on mesquite refer readers to the following website: http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/mesquite/, which is an excellent paper on the deleterious effects on the Australian environment and commercial animal husbandry as a result of the introduction of mesquite into this country. The paper is sponsored by the Department Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland, Australia, and explains at length the introduction, spread, effects and attempts at eradication of introduced Prosopis spp. The foreword to the paper is succinct: "...Mesquite is one of Australia's worst weeds. While it already infests nearly a million hectares, its capacity to thrive in a range of climates, soils and landscapes means that over 70% of the Australian mainland is threatened. However, as the vast majority of current mesquite infestations are relatively small and sparse, it is critical that all possible efforts be directed to confining, controlling and, where possible, eradicating this weed. If mesquite is not controlled, it is likely that future generations will inherit an unproductive thorny shrubland..." 203.59.176.103 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Bob Douglas[reply]

You might want to leave a note on the talk page of Gidip. I think they're involved with tagging up articles in the Category:Invasive species category. You might also want to be more specific about which species in particular are threatening Australia. Lunch 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Energy Source?

[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOYZF3It848&mode=related&search=


Possible energy source? Haha Wikipediarules2221 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food... substitution for regular flour

[edit]

Hi. First of all, I'm a novice at editing Wikipedia. I just created my account.

In the Mesquite article, there's discussion of using ground mesquite pods as a flour... the suggestion being to substitute 1/4 to 1/2 a cup of ground mesquite pod for a a cup of regular flour. (I should probably quote it here...).

I interpret that as using 1/4 (or even 1/2) cup of ground mesquite pod, where the recipe calls for a cup of flour. No regular flour is used.

I suspect what is meant is to substitute 1/4 to 1/2 a cup of the regular flour with ground mesquite, and using 1/2 to 3/4 of regular flour along with it.

Or perhaps my interpretation was what was intended... and a small amount of mesquite works the same as a larger quantity of regular flour! That's a little hard to believe.

- stp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.18 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I'm pretty new at this myself! But you're right on a few counts. The article can be misinterpreted to mean total substitution --

When used in baking, it is used in combination with other flours – the ratio is generally 1 part of mesquite flour for 2 to 3 of cup grain or rice flour. Since the mesquite is sweet, you might want to decrease the sugar in the recipe.

So I'm not sure it we edit or someone else edits. Kokopelli's Kitchen (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello

Maybe this is just a problem for me, but this article in particular seems to have a link blocking most of the page, excluding the header with the various tabs and search bar. It has a gee.su shortened link and leads to a facebook page. It doesn't seem to be on other articles, so I think it is exclusively on this article. Troubleshooting is beyond me, so I just thought I'd leave this note.

Thanks, 72.211.146.204 (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mesquite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: what the seeds taste like. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive Species

[edit]

The paragraph "Although Prosopis spp. are naturally occurring in these areas, these changes have resulted in their being able to successfully outcompete other native plants and they are now considered invasive species because they are able to take advantage of vulnerable ecosystems.[8" refers to a text that says no such thing. Being invasive in its native range is a contradiction in terms. 89.246.108.170 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggressive" is a term heard in conservation circles for this phenomenon. The phenomenon of outcompeting other plants. I heard Invasive means Aggressive *and* non-native. While Naturalized is non-aggressive and non-native. So it seems to me like "aggressive" can probably be used here. CuteScribbles (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesquite&oldid=1202105980"