Amogne Asfaw Eshetu- Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wollo University, Dessie, Ethiopia
Introduction: Prosopis juliflora has posed a severe threat to human and animal life in arid and semi-arid areas of the world. Thus, this review intends to shed light on the potential use of Prosopis as a helpful resource and feasible management system.
Methods: This research employs a systematic review methodology.
Results: The review revealed that the species had been introduced to overcome deforestation and desertification. Prosopis juliflora has had different socioeconomic and environmental impacts on local communities. The most widely cited adverse impacts include out-competing native species and quickly reducing forage plants, being a harbour for predators, health problems and death of domestic animals, and being an ideal ground for mosquito breeding. On the other hand, the species provides multiple ecosystem services like the provision of construction materials, animal feed and charcoal; plays a role in soil conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and saline soils, good sources of nectar for honey production; contributes to reducing dust pollution; enhances carbon sequestration, and have medicinal value due to its antifungal and antibacterial features. The local community’s attitude regarding the species is mixed.
Discussion: The consequent negative impacts are increasing quickly, making the urgent need to develop robust and practical management strategies necessary to both mitigate the adverse effects and fully use the benefits. Commercialization (with a notion of management through utilization) is a feasible way to minimize expansion. Cross-boundary endeavours for controlling Prosopis juliflora expansion to new regions, particularly in countries predicted as edges of high potential invasion, are required to manage the species invasion efficiently.
1 Introduction
Globally, invasive species are the second most critical factor in reducing biodiversity, followed by habitat loss. While most of them were adopted to bring about positive socioeconomic and environmental effects (Laxén, 2007), they currently have complex effects on socioeconomic and ecological aspects, primarily affecting rural livelihoods, and some effects are irreversible (Eschen et al., 2023). One of the most predominant and dangerous invasive alien species, Prosopis juliflora (hereafter Prosopis), is currently found in over 129 countries, mainly in arid and semi-arid regions of the world. The species is well adapted to harsh environmental conditions and has spread to most arid and semi-arid areas of the world, causing positive and negative impacts (Obonyo et al., 2017). These days, according to Kamiri et al. (2024), Prosopis has posed a severe threat to human and animal life in most East African countries, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, and Tanzania. Dakhil et al. (2021) also underscored that Prosopis is among the most problematic invasive trees in tropical and subtropical regions. Kamiri et al. (2024) also labelled Prosopis as the most common alien invasive plant species in East Africa. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified the species as one of the world’s top 100 least-wanted species (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Kamiri et al., 2024). The species is a versatile tree that can be grown in various temperatures and soil conditions. It is also a fast-growing tree that can supply essential goods and has a nitrogen-fixing nature, which implies that it can improve soil fertility and increase crop yields. On the other side, Prosopis may also become an invasive species. It can produce dense thickets that reduce biodiversity by replacing native species.
Additionally, it may compete with crops for water and nutrients, which could reduce yields. The consequent negative impacts are increasing quickly, making the urgent need to develop robust and practical management strategies necessary to both mitigate the adverse effects and fully use the benefits (Shackleton et al., 2014; Patnaik et al., 2017; Bezaredie et al., 2023). Zeray et al. (2017); Abdulahi et al. (2017), and Shiferaw et al. (2022) are just a few of the well-documented examples of P. juliflora’s magnitude of proliferation and detrimental effects in different parts of arid and semi-arid areas. Not much comprehensive research has been done on its benefits other than using it as a source of fuelwood, fences, animal feed, and to make charcoal (Haji and Mohammed, 2013; Sola et al., 2021; Shiferaw et al., 2022). Thus, the debate is whether Prosopis ought to be eliminated or seen as a helpful resource that may be used. Thus, based on a large body of scientific literature and case studies, this review intends to shed light on the potential use of Prosopis as a helpful resource and feasible management system. Furthermore, the study evaluated whether controlling it through utilization could be a feasible alternative, presenting a paradigm shift from considering it as a “weed” to appreciating it as a “wealth.” To that end, based on the literature, this systematic review would address the following issues:
1. How and why did Prosopis spread in different parts of the world?
2. What side effects and benefits do Prosopis juliflora have?
3. How does the local community perceive the spread effects and benefits of Prosopis?
4. What feasible management strategies are implemented globally to minimize the spread of the species?
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Review protocol
This research employs a systematic review systematically and scopingally analyzes prior studies and data from peer-reviewed published papers rather than conducting primary fieldwork or data collecting. This systematic review aims to critically examine the existing knowledge on the expansion of the Prosopis species, the attitudes of local communities towards Prosopis, and the documented side effects and benefits associated with Prosopis. Furthermore, the review aims to explore the feasible management strategies and options being implemented to address Prosopis-related issues. Thus, the study relied on published and grey literature. The systematic review process involved a comprehensive and purposive search of research outputs from published articles, grey literature, proceedings, reports, case studies, and books) focusing on the historical introduction and expansion of Prosopis, its socioeconomic and ecological impacts, species benefits, how the local community values the species, and management systems being implemented by different actors, we purposively included and critically reviewed them.
The search for peer-reviewed literature was conducted using the electronic databases “Agricola,” “Science Direct”, “Scopus”, “Scispace”, and “Google Scholar” and covered all literature indexed up to 2024. Key terms used in the searching process include “Prosopis juliflora + expansion”, “Prosopis juliflora + historical background” “Prosopis juliflora + benefits”, “Prosopis juliflora + side effects”, “Prosopis juliflora + expansion + local community perception”, “Prosopis juliflora + management systems”, “Prosopis juliflora + management through utilization”, “Prosopis juliflora + ecosystem services”, “Prosopis juliflora + livelihoods”, “Prosopis juliflora + pastoral and agropastoral communities”. Research outputs focusing on the historical expansion of the Prosopis juliflora, the pros and cons of the species, the perception of local communities, management systems and prospects of the species were included in the review regardless of their time of publication. On the other hand, works on the species’ physiology and biochemical features were not included in the systematic review. The extracted concepts and issues were coded and analyzed thematically. Practical case studies have substantiated the review. After pertinent sources were found and retrieved, the data and information were collected, and then a thematic method was used to code and evaluate it. As a result, the researchers could recognize important ideas, patterns, and recurrent themes in the available Prosopis literature. The analysis was further substantiated by including relevant case studies that provide practical illustrations and contextual insights. The extensive and meticulous method used to evaluate the published and unpublished literature guarantees that the study’s conclusions are firmly based on an awareness of the state of knowledge in this field.
3 Historical background of Prosopis juliflora and its expansion
Native to South and Central America over the past 200 years, Prosopis has been spread all over the world spreading from southern Mexico to Panama and from the Caribbean Islands to northern South America (Venezuela and Northern Peru) (Tewari et al., 2011; Hussain et al., 2021; Dakhil et al., 2021 and Kamiri et al., 2024). These days, it can be found in several semi-arid and arid climate zones, such as the Middle East, Australia the Arabic Peninsula, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa, as well as other parts of Southern America, India, Pakistan, Australia, and the Pacific (Abedelnoor et al., 2009; Tewari et al., 2011). Prosopis has been introduced to several hot tropical and arid regions of different countries with varied purposes like providing fodder, fuel wood and shade, for dune stabilization, combating desertification as well, and attacking deforestation (Hussain et al., 2021; Kamiri et al., 2024). For example, since Prosopis is drought-tolerant, the Derg regime deliberately introduced it to Ethiopia’s arid and semi-arid areas in the 1970s and 1980s with the intention of environmental rehabilitation (considered an afforestation measure to reverse desertification) (Wakie et al., 2012; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; PENHA, 2015) (see Box 1). However, as of right now, it has had numerous unforeseen damaging social, economic, and ecological effects (Wakie et al., 2012; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; Rettberg, 2014; Ilukor et al., 2016; FDRE-MLF, 2017; Patnaik et al., 2017; Kamiri et al., 2024). Similarly, it was introduced in the late 1970s and 1980s to Kenya to address deforestation, desertification, fodder programs, and fuel shortage (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Maundu et al., 2009). Likewise, the species was introduced in arid areas of eastern Africa like Somalia to provide fuel wood and stabilize dune systems after prolonged droughts and deforestation in the 1970s and 1980s (Rembold et al., 2015).
Box 1. Case study 1: expansion of prosopis in ethiopia
Ethiopia’s semi-arid and dry regions suffer significantly from Prosopis’s numerous adverse socioeconomic and environmental effects. It threatens the livelihoods of pastoralists, agropastoralists, and biodiversity as it spreads quickly through rangelands, croplands, forests, wildlife reserves, and national parks (Belay and Goshu, 2020). Unless swift action is taken to stop the species’ spread, more areas may soon be invaded, increasing the likelihood that life-sustaining resources will be destroyed and that tribal conflict will break out for the remaining grazing and farming areas. This could lead to an unanticipated political crisis (Berhanu and Tesfaye, 2006; Bezaredie et al., 2023). The FMECD (2014) emphasized further that the loss of grazing ground by invasive species forces pastoralists to relocate to new grazing regions or look for new sources of income, which raises the possibility of confrontations with farmers and other pastoralists. Furthermore, the land degradation risk worsens by raising animal concentrations on the remaining grazing land. These could make pastoralists more susceptible to food insecurity and political instability.
Prosopis was introduced to Sudan in the early 19th century to combat desertification and as a source of fuel wood (Elfadl and Luukkanen, 2006). It was introduced to India by the end of the 20th century to recover salt and sodic-affected lands besides the need of the species for fuel wood, fiber and timber (Mishra et al., 2003; Sharma and Dakshini, 1998; Sato, 2013), and into the United Arab Emirates during the 1970s to combat desertification (El-Keblawy and Al-Rawai, 2007, and Howari et al., 2022). Similarly, it was introduced to Djibouti in the 1950s for shade and shelter and as a street tree in many towns. Prosopis juliflora was introduced to Djibouti in the 1980s and planted in different parts of the country to control desertification (Gianvenuti et al., 2018). Prosopis was introduced into Oman to combat desertification, enhance land productivity, and serve as a fast-growing ornamental tree in landscapes from Latin American countries in the 1970s (Al-Rawahy et al., 2003). Prosopis was introduced into South Africa in the 1980s for erosion control and windbreak and as a source of fuel wood (Maitre et al., 2002). Similarly, Prosopis was brought into Pakistan to provide a valuable source of income to people experiencing poverty and for the reclamation of dunes stabilization during the 1950s and 1960s. In comparison, it was dispersed into different country regions in the early 1970s (Essa et al., 2017).
Prosopis is a very robust invader that may swiftly take advantage of a suitable environment and control entire ecosystems due to its long life cycle, resistance to saline soils, ability to withstand droughts, high seed output, and dormancy of its seeds in the soil. Anywhere near human settlements, along highways and cattle trails, are suitable for growing Prosopis trees. Its main mechanisms for dispersing seeds are flooding and livestock (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Rembold et al., 2015). Due to possible future increases in temperature due to climate change, arid and semi-arid areas lands, mainly in Africa, are at the highest risk of invasion than other moist biomes (Dakhil et al., 2021). Since its introduction for environmental purposes in different parts of the world, Prosopis has been expanding alarmingly and now become a critical environmental concern, for instance. Alien invasive species have invaded much rangeland in Ethiopia’s Somali and Afar regional states, and this invasion appears to continue (FAO, 2008; Eschen et al., 2023; FMECD, 2014; Zeray et al., 2017). Even in regions that seem to have been eradicated, soil-borne seeds can germinate, and trees can grow more quickly than under natural conditions due to previous insufficient attempts to restore reclaimed ground and avoid reinvasion by Prosopis seeds (Haregeweyn et al., 2013; FDRE-MLF, 2017).
4 Side-effects of Prosopis juliflora
Agropastoral communities’ means of subsistence and food security are at risk due to Prosopis, which primarily affects the arid and semi-arid lowlands of the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Eritrea, and Somalia are among the countries most severely affected) (FMECD, 2014). According to Shitanda et al. (2013); Haregeweyn et al. (2013), and Balcha (2022), the tree has widely expanded, taking up most of the grazing zones and creating impenetrable thickets that hinder the establishment of other plants. Prosopis thickets can completely cover an area, out-competing native species and quickly reducing forage plants; in the worst-case scenario, the pastoral community may be forced to relocate their villages as a result of the invasions; they also harbor predators and prevent undergrowth; animals that consume pods suffer from tooth loss and other health issues, which can sometimes lead to the death of domestic animals (significant assets of the pastoral community) (Pasiecznik, 2018; Edrisi et al., 2020). Study communities in Afar (Rogers et al., 2017) reported increasing proximity to wild animals, threatening their livestock and children. Besides, thorns make it difficult for pastoralists to penetrate the dense thickets to collect fuelwood, and thorns cause severe inflammation that may take a week to subside. Prosopis obstructed paths and roads used by both humans and livestock, making accessibility of grazing land and water points more complicated and requiring longer walking times to get to desired destinations (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Hussain et al., 2021; Shiferaw et al., 2022). Mehari (2015), on his part, stressed that the Prosopis invasion has hindered transhumance: seasonal migration of herds in search of feed and water (which is a common way of life in the pastoral community, and one of the risk management strategies being employed by pastoralists to maintain their livestock assets and also a feasible mechanism for the recovery of grazing lands).
Due to the lack of fodder in Prosopis-infested areas, a study conducted by Zeray et al. (2017) for the Dire Dawa city administration found a statistically significant difference in milk production revenue. Inkermann (2014) also noted that the size of the livestock herd, the primary source of income for pastoral communities, was declining in Ethiopia’s pastoral areas as a result of recurring animal diseases and a reduction in grazing spaces, which was mainly brought on by Prosopis species’ invasion of rangeland. Prosopis has also impacted the health of people and animals. Its thorns can cause lameness, blindness, infections, hand and leg ulcers, itching, and eye injuries. Prosopis pod consumption causes impaction and constipation in children. Long-term ingestion of the pod and excessive seed accumulation after feeding results in the death of cattle (Wakie et al., 2012; Inkermann, 2014; Abdulahi et al., 2017; Balcha, 2022). Thickets of Prosopis serve as excellent mosquito breeding grounds (Patnaik et al., 2017), and the most often cited issue was the prevalence of malaria linked to the thickets’ growth (Wakie et al., 2012; Inkermann, 2014; Abdulahi et al., 2017). According to Hussain et al. (2021), its ability to flower more than once yearly enables Prosopis to cause health problems like allergies. Women should be responsible for looking for firewood and water, where the risk of being affected by the thorn is high (Inkermann, 2014). The species has a significant ecological impact; in Kenya, reports have indicated that it has reduced ground vegetation cover and reduced herbaceous species from regenerating (Muturi, 2012). A study by Tewari et al. (2011) reported that the invasion of Prosopis juliflora has turned the grazing lands into inaccessible hostile. Prosopis’s thickets in the Afar region (Ethiopia) have decreased nearly 75% of the carrying capacity of arable lands in New Mexico, and around 60% of pasture land in the Banni area of Asia has vanished. Prosopis has an impact on birdlife as well. A study in India revealed a negative correlation between the diversity of bird species and non-native vegetation (Barhadiya et al., 2022). Another study also reported Prosopis’ impact on birds through their chicks’ mortality (Chandrasekaran et al., 2014). Prosopis also strains the infrastructure that pastoralism depends on: access is hindered by narrowed and blocked roads and tracks, and vehicles with inflatable tyres are more likely to puncture due to the thorns. This reduces opportunities to access markets because large vehicles cannot transport the livestock long distances, and herding options are complicated by the tendency to lose stock in the thickets as the roads become less visible (Rogers et al., 2017).
5 Prosopis juliflora as a valuable resource
5.1 Economic and socio-cultural benefits
Though the negative impacts of Prosopis are widely documented, the tree/shrub also produces valuable goods and services like construction materials, soil conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and saline soils, charcoal and animal feed production (and in some cases, food for humans) (Laxén, 2007; Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Pasiecznik, 2018). Pasiecznik (2018) and Pandey et al. (2019) noted that charcoal production from Prosopis is the most popular and profitable activity in many developing nations, requiring no initial capital but only labour and conventional production methods. Prosopis produces exceptionally high-quality fuel wood that burns slowly, has a high calorific value, produces little smoke, and generates uniform heat (Pasiecznik et al., 2001; Preeti et al., 2015). Prosopis provides a hard and heavy wood that makes excellent firewood and superior charcoal (Tewari et al., 2011; Tessema, 2012; Shitanda et al., 2013; Abdulahi et al., 2017; Sola et al., 2021; Pasiecznik, 2018; Kamiri et al., 2024). Due to the large amount of biomass produced by P. juliflora, it is used in electricity generation. Recently, Prosopis pods have been known as an alternative substitute for ethanol production (Tewari et al., 2011). In Djibouti, for instance, Prosopis species have been becoming huge assets capable of supporting tree-based enterprises and livelihoods and providing conservation benefits (Gianvenuti et al., 2018).
Prosopis flowers are good sources of nectar, leading to high honey production (Wakie et al., 2012; Shitanda et al., 2013; Kamiri et al., 2024), and they flower throughout the year and provide nectar to bees. The flowers produce plentiful quantities of pollen and nectar, which can flourish for long periods and attract pollinators (Pasiecznik et al., 2001). It is a significant honey source in Bolivia, Jamaica, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Peru, and Argentina (Tewari et al., 2011; Abdulahi et al., 2017). A study by Kumar et al. (2013) found that Prosopis plantations can support up to 100 beehives per hectare. This makes the tree an essential source of honey for beekeepers. Prosopis is also a major gum and resin source (Wakie et al., 2012; Abdulahi et al., 2017). Prosopis pods may be used as dietary supplements for people and animals. According to Shitanda et al. (2013), the pods’ high nutritional value demonstrated their potential for producing nutrient-dense goods such as juice, wine, gum, powder, essential oils, and drinks. Prosopis trees yield more fruit than other species that grow in comparable conditions. They began to produce fruit in the third or fourth year after germination (Pasiecznik et al., 2001). Because Prosopis pods have a high sugar and protein content, they make an excellent substitute food source for animals such as sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, and poultry (Tewari et al., 2011; Tessema, 2012; Wakie et al., 2012; Abdulahi et al., 2017; Ram et al., 2022). A study by Kumar et al. (2013) in India found an increase in milk production of up to 20% when pod flour was used for lactating animals.
Similarly, a study found that when 38% of grounded Prosopis pods were mixed with other ingredients, the body weight gain in goats increased by 38% (Tewari et al., 2011). Another study by Ali et al. (2012) confirmed that supplementation of the diet of Afar sheep with ground Prosopis pods resulted in growth performance and carcass parameters and improved their feed intake capacity. Consistent with this finding, a study in Oman (Mahgoub et al., 2005) revealed that Prosopis, a 200 g/kg proportion in goat diets, enabled improved feed intake, body weight gain, and feed conversion without compromising carcass yield or quality. According to a study conducted in Kenya, using Prosopis pods increased goat weight statistically compared to control groups (Kipchirchir et al., 2014). According to this study, feeding goats up to 200 grams of feed per day will improve their weight gain and have no adverse impact on their feed intake or digestibility.
Similarly, Ram et al. (2022) discovered that adding up to 20% of Prosopis pods to goat feed considerably increased the average daily weight gain and the overall weight gain. Another study in Kenya revealed that bread made with 20% Prosopis pods has a good taste and nutritional value (Wakie et al., 2012). For centuries, indigenous peoples in Latin America collected and stored pods in large baskets, which became important during droughts when food availability became a critical concern. Once the sun-dried pods are grained, bread, cakes, or rich gruels are prepared after mixing them with flours of maize or other grains (Pasiecznik, 2018). In addition to improving the feed value, the milling of the pods can be used as one of the mechanisms to control the invasion of the plants in the rangelands (Abdulahi et al., 2017). Prosopis also provided different cultural and artisan values. In certain cultures and indigenous communities, it may be used in traditional ceremonies, rituals, and storytelling, representing a connection to the land and ancestral heritage. It also provides valuable shade in hot and arid regions, relieving the scorching sun. This shade can create comfortable outdoor spaces for social gatherings, community events, and leisure activities (Alegi et al., 2010). Local artisans can create intricate carvings, sculptures, furniture, and other decorative items from Prosopis wood, showcasing the cultural heritage and skills of the community (Evans, 1998).
5.2 Environmental benefits
The leaves of the Prosopis plant are organic fertilizers (Shitanda et al., 2013). The leaves and pods of Prosopis considerably increased the amount of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium in soils, according to research by Ilukor et al. (2016). Compared to other plant species, Prosopis has a deeper root system that aids in stabilizing the soil and reducing erosion (Kamiri et al., 2024). A study in Dire Dawa city administration proved that agropastoralists have good experience in converting some of the invaded grazing lands into cropland (especially for the production of sorghum) in gullies and degraded areas that are covered with good soil when invaded by Prosopis due to its ability to control gully erosion and soil retaining capacity (Haji and Mohammed, 2013; Kamiri et al., 2024). A considerable improvement in soil texture and organic matter under the tree canopy was also recorded. A study in Peru revealed that Prospois plays a crucial role in enhancing soil fertility and moisture, in microclimatic amelioration, and desalination (Beresford-Jones et al., 2009). A study in India also revealed that, due to its nitrogen-fixation nature, Prosopis could improve the soil quality of invaded areas (Edrisi et al., 2020)
Prosopis trees also help to remove heavy metals from contaminated soils, which is a sustainable and cost-effective method (Laxén, 2007; Walter and Armstrong, 2014; Pasiecznik, 2018). In this regard, Pasiecznik et al. (2001); Laxén (2007), and Pasiecznik (2018) found that Prosopis has an ameliorating effect on the soil under trees from nitrogen fixation and leaf litter that decays rapidly, which enables the improvement of soil physical and nutritional status; decreasing salinity and plays a significant role in reclaiming unproductive lands. Sharma et al. (2012) found that Prosopis can help to reduce soil salinity by up to 30% by absorbing salt from the soil, which makes practicing agriculture in saline soils possible. A study in India (Pandey et al., 2019) affirmed that the soil organic carbon, nitrogen, potassium, and soil moisture contents were higher under the Prosopis canopy than in open lands. Being evergreen all year round, even in arid conditions, it offers excellent shade in hot, dry areas, reducing the near-ground temperature (Laxén, 2007; Maundu et al., 2009). Because of its taproot structure, Prosopis can reach deep groundwater reserves. Plantations of Prosopis were found to enhance groundwater recharge by up to 200% in a study conducted by Singh et al. (2011). It also aids the environment by providing a range of species, such as birds, insects, mammals, food, and habitat. Kumar et al. (2013) say this may contribute to increased biodiversity and improved ecological function. Prosopis can enhance the water’s quality by removing impurities from runoff water. Accordingly, a study by Singh et al. (2011) verified that the tree can lower runoff water’s phosphate and nitrate levels by as much as 50%.
Prosopis also provides different ecosystem services like erosion control (used to arrest wind erosion and dune stabilization) and reclamation of lands (it is wildly planted for land reclamation because it is an aggressive colonizer, tolerant to impoverished, degraded, saline, alkaline soils); and nitrogen-fixing (it moderately enriches the soil with atmospheric nitrogen). For instance, a study in the Awash basin (Ethiopia) by Ayanu et al. (2014) reported that the dense shrubs of Prosopis physically shield soils from wind erosion during dry seasons and from intense rainfall during wet ones. This lessens runoff in locations where grasses aren’t present to cover the soil. In addition, during rainy seasons and when the Awash River overflows, the dense structures of the Prosopis shrubs stabilize the soil, regulate the flow of water, and promote the infiltration of water into the soil. Besides, Prosopis trees and woodlands play a significant role in sequestering carbon and combating desertification (Pasiecznik et al., 2001; Tewari et al., 2011; Walter and Armstrong, 2014; Abdulahi et al., 2017). A study by Tewari et al. (2011) found that, since Prosopis is a fast-growing tree, it can sequester up to 20 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare per year, which makes the resource a valuable tool for mitigating climate change. Another ecological role of Prosopis is its contribution to reducing dust pollution. A study by Singh et al. (2011) found that Prosopis plantations improved air quality and reduced dust pollution by up to 50%.
5.3 Health benefits
Prosopis wood is reported to have medicinal value due to its antifungal and antibacterial features (Tewari et al., 2011), while the leaves are widely used as herbal medicine due to their antibiotic nature (Shitanda et al., 2013), and the plant tissues are essential for oil extraction, mainly for beauty and medicinal products. Prosopis has been used for a long to produce bio-pesticides in India (Walter and Armstrong, 2014). In India, parts of Prosopis are used for medical purposes like treating skin infections, insect bites and bone injuries (Duenn et al., 2017). Henciya et al. (2017), on their part, revealed the medicinal value of Prosopis gum and smoke from leaves and pods to be used traditionally for anticancer, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial purposes. A study by Ghasemi et al. (2015) found that leaves of Prosopis have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, while the leaves are valuable in protecting against liver damage. Another study by Saleh and Abu-Dieyeh (2021) found that Prosopis bark has antimicrobial activity against various bacteria and fungi and can treat skin infections. Juliflorine compound extracted from the species is used to cure Alzheimer’s disease (Henciya et al., 2017). Preeti et al. (2015) also reported that Prosopis contains antibacterial, antifungal, anticancer, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activity, which makes the resource valuable in pharmaceutical science. A study by Mutile et al. (2021) reported that leaf extracts of Prosopis have a significant inhibitory effect, exhibiting a higher splenic anti-amastigote effect. Alkaabi et al. (2020) further stated that the leaves of Prosopis have antimicrobial effect and are potentially helpful in treating infectious diseases. Pasiecznik et al. (2001) reported that the barks, leaves, flowers, and extracts of Prosopis are used to treat different diseases in different parts of the world, like treating pains, parasites and urinary disorders, skin disorders, dermatitis and parasitic infections, prevention of miscarriage, for the treatment of leprosy, dysentery, bronchitis, asthma, leucoderma, tremors, and rheumatism. Leaf smoke is used to cure eye infections, and extracts are recommended to treat snake bites and scorpion stings. Prosopis juliflora leaf methanol extract has been shown in an experimental study by Utage et al. (2018) to exhibit remarkable anti-breast cancer activity, particularly against triple-negative breast cancer cells. Additionally, studies have shown that Prosopis leaf extract significantly suppresses 4T1-induced tumour growth.
6 Perception of local community
Local communities in different parts of the world have varied outlooks towards Prosopis. A study by Tewari et al. (2011) affirmed that rural populations in arid and semi-arid tropics are a little apprehensive of the species as they consider that species adversely affects crop production and fear it may become a weed. Thorny stems and branches of the species, which often cause injuries to humans and animals and hinder agricultural operations, are the primary reasons for the villagers’ dislike of the species. A study in India (Duenn et al., 2017) reported that the pastoralists do not perceive the Prosopis invasion as a significant problem. Mesfin (2006), on the other hand, reported that pastoral and agropastoral communities in Afar, Ethiopia, have come to recognize the ecological advantages of the species, such as enhanced saline lands, decreased wind damage, decreased erosion, and improved soil fertility.
Nevertheless, the overall harm caused by Prosopis surpasses these environmental advantages, and the people living in the area resent this and fiercely advocate for its destruction (Sweddy, 2015). According to Berhanu and Tesfaye (2006), the people who live in Somalia and Afar, Ethiopia, have different viewpoints. Pastoral communities usually have negative opinions toward the species because of its harmful consequences, which outweigh its benefits, on rangelands, farming regions, access to waterways, and health issues for humans and cattle. However, professionals, local urban populations, and specialists in natural resources all hold conflicting views regarding the species. According to Chekole (2014), the local community in the Afar region of Ethiopia has perceived Prosopis negatively due to its fast invasion rate and negative impacts like loss of biodiversity, physical harm to humans and livestock, blocking access roads to farms and irrigation canals, where the majority of people preferred complete eradication of the species. This is despite the plant’s benefits in improving soil fertility and creating a microclimate for the plant. According to a Mehari (2015) survey study conducted in the Afar region of Ethiopia, even though the pastoral community frequently used the species for fuel wood, fencing homesteads, and house construction, 84% of the surveyed households rated the species as undesirable because it limited transhumance, occupied settlement areas, and affected the availability of grass and multipurpose trees and bushes. Similarly, a study by Seid et al. (2020) in the Afar region of Ethiopia reported that nearly 90% of interviewed respondents had disfavored the species due to its invasive nature.
In Kenya, the local population, particularly in rural areas compared to urban regions, holds a negative perception of Prosopis and would prefer not to live with it, even if it were used as a source of money in the form of charcoal, poles, and pods (Maundu et al., 2009). In South Africa, Shackleton et al. (2015) reported a negative attitude towards Prosopis, where costs associated with the species outweighed its benefits, and the local community recommends its reduction or eradication. In South Africa, differing views were reported by Ravhuhali et al. (2021), where positive attitudes due to their potential as a source of good nutritional value and serve as an alternative source of protein and minerals for livestock during the dry season were reported. However, communities developed negative attitudes towards this species due to its adverse impact on the groundwater and its invasive effect on grazing lands.
7 Management systems of Prosopis juliflora
Regarding the management system of Prosopis, Shibru (2015) argued that there is limited knowledge and experience in managing and utilizing Prosopis, and there have been few policies or strategies for quick action. According to Shibru (2015) and Kamiri et al. (2024), the management system can be divided into four categories: mechanical control (which involves physically uprooting or removing plants from the site, often combined with burning, using hand-held or power-driven tools), chemical control (applying herbicides to prevent new growth or kill seedlings after cutting or burning), biological control (using living organisms to control pest species), and management through utilization (exploiting the economic potential of invasive species to meet basic human needs while controlling their spread and potentially eradicating them). Despite various attempts to eliminate Prosopis in different countries, the outcomes have not met expectations (Laxén, 2007; McConnachie et al., 2012). For instance, other efforts were made to eradicate the species using herbicides and mechanical measures in the USA, Mexico, Argentina, Sudan, Australia, and Pakistan, where little success was achieved. For example, common control measures in the Afar region (Ethiopia) include uprooting seedlings, cutting, and burning (Seid et al., 2020). As noted by Ayanu et al. (2014), eradication trials in Ethiopia (Awash region) using cutting and burning proved to be highly labor-intensive, expensive, and ineffective considering the rapid regrowth of the species that produces numerous sprouts shortly after clearing. Besides, due to failure in eradication, scientists worldwide started to explore the optimum utilization of Prosopis, where the species’ benefits have been recognized recently (Tewari et al., 2011). Obonyo et al. (2017), for instance, recommended the commercialization of the plant seed for animal feed and human production as well as for medicinal use as a feasible way of minimizing Prosopis’ expansion rate (see Boxes 2, 3). According to Pasiecznik et al. (2001) and Wise et al. (2012), if intentional management practices are not implemented, the shrubs will continue to spread to new areas and eventually become the dominant vegetation. By implementing further management and utilizing Prosopis, we can open up land for agriculture, promote the recovery of indigenous plant species, and reduce the risk of injuries to humans and animals.
Box 2. Case study 2: prosopis management through utilization in the Afar region (using cooperatives)
Farm Africa, an NGO in Ethiopia’s Afar area, introduced Prosopis pod grinding machines and organized cooperatives to handle pod harvesting, gathering, grinding, and selling. Four cooperatives were established in the Gewane and Amibara districts and were granted official licenses. Members were trained and technically supported mainly in Prosopis tree harvesting techniques to prevent coppicing; utilization of time and labour-efficient charcoal production techniques using metal kilns; pod collection, drying, and crushing using small hammer mills; and typical flour mills and cooperative leadership and financial management. The cooperatives were given hand tools, sample metal kilns, sample pod crushing mills, and “seed money” to initiate the charcoal trade. The activity benefited both local people and the cooperative selling the crushed pods. In addition to controlling the spread of Prosopis to new areas, the intervention provided high-quality animal feed. It helped local people raise additional income to better cope with the chronic food insecurity in the region caused by Prosopis in the first place. The business is a good alternative for animal feed processors and those who engage in dairy and fattening farms to secure highly nutritious animal feed at affordable prices. Households involved in charcoal production and sales obtained an excellent income and diversified their livelihood base to better cope with food insecurity. Cooperatives cleared Prosopis thicket from over 396 hectares in one year, providing pasture and cultivable land to local communities.
(Source: Admasu, 2008)
Box 3. Case study 3: prosopis management through utilization in Kenya
In Northern Kenya, the extent of invasion has become so severe that a great deal of land has been invaded by the species, which causes the disappearance of indigenous plant and grass species. Local communities stated that their existence is threatened as they have lost valuable pastures and farmland to Prosopis. Despite several attempts to control the spread and further invasion of Prosopis in the Baringo region in Kenya, remarkable success was not attained. To overcome this challenge, training was given to charcoal producers and a primary school teacher regarding sustainable harvesting techniques. It was supported with a drum kiln and equipment to improve wood-to-charcoal production in the traditional earth mound kiln by the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry. Finally, continuous use of the plant through charcoal production has dramatically reduced its spread, and pruning the Prosopis shrub prevents it from taking over and limits seed production.
(Source: Koech et al., 2021)
Some scholars also argue that communities that depend on Prosopis as an alternative source of income may suffer if the plant is wholly eradicated (Tessema, 2012; Shitanda et al., 2013; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; Seid and Bekele, 2014; FDRE-MLF, 2017). As a result, a new management system with a notion of ‘eradiation through utilization’ has been promoted by different actors (Maundu et al., 2009; Borokini and Babalola, 2012; McConnachie et al., 2012; Haji and Mohammed, 2013; Wakie et al., 2012; Saleh et al., 2023). For instance, Chekole (2014) and Koech et al. (2021) revealed that, due to unsuccessful attempts made to control the spread and further invasion of Prosopis in Baringo County of Kenya, a new strategy has been launched by the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry to produce charcoal from the species. According to this report, continuous use of the plant through charcoal production has dramatically reduced its spread, and pruning the Prosopis shrub prevents them from taking over and limits seed production, besides its economic benefits of being an alternative source of income. The Ministry of Agriculture, Water, Fishery, Livestock and Marine Resources in Djibouti developed a national Prosopis management strategy to manage Prosopis sustainably by fully exploiting its commercial potential and improving the livelihoods of the community (Gianvenuti et al., 2018). On similar notion, according to Wakie et al. (2012) and Shitanda et al. (2013), the Ethiopian government and non-governmental organizations are presently concentrating on managing the plant’s proliferation through usage because total eradication of Prosopis is both challenging and costly (Tewari et al., 2011; Tessema, 2012; Walter and Armstrong, 2014; Ilukor et al., 2016; Assefa et al., 2023). In line with this notion, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) countries declared the “Addis Ababa declaration” in 2014 with the motto of “effective management and utilization of Prosopis in the greater Horn of Africa” (PENHA, 2015).
8 Conclusion and policy recommendation
Prosopis juliflora, introduced into different parts of the world with environmental and economic intention, is among the widespread invasive species currently found in arid and semi-arid regions. It is a very versatile tree that can be grown in a wide range of temperatures and soil conditions, and due to its high adaptability to harsh environmental conditions, it can quickly spread into the drier areas of the world, causing both positive and negative impacts.
Prosopis presents a range of multifaceted adverse effects on ecosystems and local communities. It competes with native species, leading to a rapid decline in forage plants and inhibiting the growth of underbrush. Additionally, Prosopis can attract predators and obstruct pathways and roads utilized by humans and livestock, thereby complicating access to grazing lands and water sources. Animals that consume its pods frequently experience dental loss and various health complications. The thorns of Prosopis pose further risks, potentially causing lameness, blindness, infections, ulcers on extremities, itching, and ocular injuries. For children, pod consumption can lead to gastrointestinal impaction and constipation, while long-term ingestion may result in cattle mortality. Furthermore, excessive seed accumulation following feeding can lead to the death of goats and camels. Prosopis thickets also serve as breeding habitats for mosquitoes, contributing to public health concerns, and they deplete aquifers through their extensive root systems, which access deep water sources. This encroachment reduces ground vegetation cover and diminishes the diversity of herbaceous species, thereby hindering transhumance practices. Overall, the proliferation of Prosopis strains the infrastructure essential for pastoralism, primarily by narrowing and obstructing vital roads and tracks.
Besides all these side effects, Prosopis has a wide range of economic, social, cultural, health, and ecological benefits. It provides construction materials, poles, timber, windbreak, and charcoal; serves as soil conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and saline soils; and is used in animal feed production. It serves as an alternative substitute for ethanol production; its flowers are good sources of nectar, leading to high honey production; it is used as a significant source of gum and resin; it has a high potential for the production of nutrient-dense goods such as juice, wine, gum, powder, essential oils, and drinks; the animal feed prepared from Prosopis can increase milk production for lactating animals and enhances body weight gain in goats. The tree serves as a place where traditional ceremonies, rituals, and storytelling are practiced; it provides valuable shade in hot and arid regions, reducing near-ground temperature and offering relief from the scorching sun, and the shade can create comfortable outdoor spaces for social gatherings, community events, and leisure activities. Local artisans can create intricate carvings, sculptures, furniture, and other decorative items from Prosopis, showcasing the cultural heritage and skills of the community. The environmental benefits of Prosopis include, among others, the leaves are organic fertilizers and considerably increase the amount of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium in soils; the species has a deeper root system that aids in stabilizing the soil and reducing erosion, decreasing salinity and plays a significant role in reclaiming unproductive lands. Plantations of Prosopis were found to enhance groundwater recharge; it provides food and habitat for birds, insects, and mammals; by removing impurities from runoff water, Prosopis can aid in improving the quality of the water; it plays a significant role in sequestering carbon and combating desertification; and it contributes in reducing dust pollution. Prosopis has different health benefits. The leaves, roots, tissues, parks, and fruits have antifungal, antibacterial, antibiotic, anticancer, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial purposes.
Having both adverse effects and benefits gives the local community diverse attitudes toward this species. Occasionally, pastoral communities are a little apprehensive of the species as they consider that species adversely affect pasture lands and crop production. On the other hand, due to its ecological benefits like improvement in soil fertility, erosion prevention, improvement of saline lands, creation of cooler microclimate, and reduction of wind damage, they tend to consider the species beneficial. In areas where side effects outweigh its benefits, the local community members are bitter about it and firmly push the idea of its eradication. Environmentalists and scholars argue that the complete eradication of Prosopis might be costly and, in some cases, have unforeseen effects on the livelihood of the local community and the environment. However, the consequent negative impacts are increasing quickly, making the urgent need to develop robust and practical management strategies necessary to both mitigate the adverse effects and fully use the benefits. As a result, commercialization (with a notion of management through utilization) of the plant for animal feed and human production, as well as for medicinal use, is a feasible way of minimizing the rate of expansion of Prosopis. Using the pods of Prosopis for animal feed might be the best alternative for dry land areas where animal pasture is scarce and will become more severe with a changing climate. Besides, scholars advocate awareness creation campaigns, which are very important to draw public attention and awareness regarding the management and control of the Prosopis invasion. Cross-boundary endeavors for controlling Prosopis juliflora expansion to new regions, particularly in countries predicted as edges of high potential invasion, are required to efficiently manage the species invasion, particularly in the tropical and subtropical broadleaf-forests and shrub lands.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
AE: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdulahi M. M., Ute J. A., Regasa T. (2017). Prosopis juliflora L: Distribution, impacts and available control methods in Ethiopia. Trop. Subtropical Agroecosystems 20, 75–89. doi: 10.56369/tsaes.2260
Abedelnoor T. M., Talib N. H., Mabrouk A. A., Mohamed M. A., El-Mahi M. I., Abu-Eisa H. H., et al. (2009). The use of alternative animal feeds to enhance food security and environmental protection in the Sudan (The case for Prosopis Juliflora).
Admasu D. (2008). Invasive Plants and Food Security: the case of Prosopis juliflora in the Afar region of Ethiopia (FARM-Africa for IUCN). Available online at: https://www.doc-developpement-durable.org/file (Accessed 14/8/2023).
Alegi P. O., Ogundipe O. M., Adefemi A. S., Ogunleye O. J. (2010). Socioeconomic values and environmental impacts of Prosopis juliflora (African mesquite) in a semi-arid region of Nigeria. J. Arid Environments 74, 865–871.
Ali A. S., Tudsri S., Rungme S., Kriengki K., Kaewtra K. (2012). Effect of feeding prosopis juliflora pods and leaves on performance and carcass characteristics of afar sheep. Nat. Sci. 46, 871–881.
Alkaabi D. S., Gasmenbari M. E., Abumukhaimar N. A., Shandal I. M. (2020). Antimicrobial activity of the United Arab Emirates Indigenous medicinal plants Proso Prosopis cineraria, Prosopis juliflora, and Acacia tortilis. Hamdan Med. J. 13, 110–114. doi: 10.4103/HMJ.HMJ_82_19
Al-Rawahy S. H., Al-Dhafri K. S., Al-Bahlany S. S. (2003). Germination, Growth and Drought resistance of native and Alien Plant species of the Genus Prosopis in the Sultanate of Oman. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2, 1020–1023. doi: 10.3923/ajps.2003.1020.1023
Assefa D., Mekuriaw A., Tesfaye M., Sewnet H., Belay B. (2023). Mapping of Prosopis rate of expansion and developing species-specific allometric equations to estimate its aboveground biomass in the dry land of Ethiopia. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 9, 263–274. doi: 10.1007/s40808-022-01495-3
Ayanu Y., Jentsch A., Muller-Mahn D., Rettberg S., Romankiewicz C., Koellner T. (2014). Ecosystem engineer unleashed: Prosopis juliflora threatening ecosystem services? Reg. Environ. Change 15, 155–167. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0616-x
Balcha L. D. (2022). Prosopis juliflora distribution, impacts, and control methods available in Ethiopia. Int. J. Natural Resource Ecol. Management 7, 132–144. doi: 10.11648/j.ijnrem.20220703.12
Barhadiya G., Sultana F., Khudsar A. A., Hussain M. S. (2022). Is there any impact of non-native vegetation on bird communities in Delhi, India? Trop. Ecol. 63, 49–60. doi: 10.1007/s42965-021-00181-2
Belay M., Goshu A. (2020). Impact of prosopis juliflora on pastoral communities of bale zone Oromia Region, Ethiopia. World Rural Observ. 12, 85–94. doi: 10.7537/marswro120320.07
Beresford-Jones D., Susana A. T., Whaley O. Q., Chepstow-Lusty A. J. (2009). The role of Prosopis in ecological and landscape change in the Samaca Basin, Lower Ica Valley, south coast Peru from the early horizon to the late intermediate period. Latin Am. Antiquity 20, 1–30. doi: 10.1017/S1045663500002650
Berhanu A., Tesfaye G. (2006). The Prosopis Dilemma impacts dryland biodiversity and some controlling methods. J. Dryland 1, 158–164.
Bezaredie D., Tadesse Z., Tadesse Z. (2023). Effects of Prosopis juliflora on plant diversity on rangeland in Shilabo District, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. Heliyon; 9, e14049. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14049
Borokini T., Babalola F. (2012). Management of invasive plant species in Nigeria through economic exploitation: Lessons from our countries. Manage. Biol. Invasions 3, 45–55. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2012.3.1.05
Chandrasekaran S., Saraswathy K., Saravanan S., Kamaladhasan N., Nagendran N. A. (2014). Impact of Prosopis juliflora on nesting success of breeding wetland birds at Vettangudi Bird Sanctuary, South India. Curr. Sci. 106, 676–678. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24099963
Chekole W. (2014). “Prosopis juliflora management stakeholders analysis in afar national regional state, Ethiopia,” in Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’ Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Proceedings of the Regional Conference: May 1 - May 2, 2014.
Dakhil M. A., El-Keblawy A., El-Sheikh M. A., Halmy M. W. A., Ksiksi T., Hassan W. A. (2021). Global Invasion Risk Assessment of Prosopis juliflora at Biome Level: Does Soil Matter? Biology 10, 203. doi: 10.3390/biology10030203
Duenn P., Salpeteur M., Reyes-Garcıa V. (2017). Rabari shepherds and the mad tree: the dynamics of local ecological knowledge in the context of prosopis juliflora invasion in Gujarat, India. J. Ethnobiol. 37, 561–580. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771-37.3.561
Edrisi S. A., El-Keblawy A., Abhilash P. C. (2020). Sustainability analysis of prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC-based restoration of degraded land in North India. Land; 9, 1–18. doi: 10.3390/land9020059
Elfadl M., Luukkanen O. (2006). Field studies on the ecological strategies of Prosopis juliflora in a dryland ecosystem: A leaf gas exchange approach. J. Arid Environ. 66, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.09.006
El-Keblawy A., Al-Rawai A. (2007). Impacts of the invasive exotic Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) D.C. on the native flora and soils of the UAE. Plant Ecol. 190, 23–35. doi: 10.1007/s11258-006-9188-2
Eschen R., Bekele K., Jumanne Y., Kibet S., Makale F., Mbwambo J. R., et al. (2023). Experimental Prosopis management practices and grassland restoration in three Eastern African countries. CABI Agric. Biosci. 4, 21. doi: 10.1186/s43170-023-00163-5
Essa M., Babar S., Uddin Z. (2017). Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) plant prevalence in different districts of Balochistan & antibacterial activity of its pods. Pure Appl. Biol. 6, 1503–1515. doi: 10.19045/bspab.2017.600162
Evans J. (1998). Commercialization of thorn bush products in Kenya (Nairobi, Kenya: Drylands Research Institute (ICRAF).
FAO (2008). “Increased food security, control and management of prosopis,” in Proceedings Expert Consultation (no.4) (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations). (Ethiopia: Addis Ababa).
FDRE-MLF (2017). National strategy on Prosopis juliflora management (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (FDRE-MLF).
FMECD (2014). Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa. Proceedings of the Regional Conference: May 1 - May 2, 2014 (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (FMECD).
Ghasemi F., Yavari K., Bahonar A. (2015). Protective effects of Prosopis leaves against CCl4-induced hepatotoxicity in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 163, 111–117.
Gianvenuti A., Farah I., Yasmin N., Jonckheere I., Xia Z. (2018). Using Prosopis as an energy source for refugees and host communities in Djibouti, and controlling its rapid spread (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Haji J., Mohammed A. (2013). Economic impact of Prosopis juliflora on agropastoral households of Dire Dawa Administration, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8, 768–779. doi: 10.5897/AJAR12.014
Haregeweyn N., Tsunekawa A., Tsubo M., Meshesha D., Melkie A. (2013). Analysis of the invasion rate, impacts and control measures of Prosopis juliflora: a case study of Amibara District, Eastern Ethiopia. Environ. Monit Assess. 185, 7527–7542. doi: 10.1007/s10661-013-3117-3
Henciya S., Seturaman P., James A. R., Tsai Y. H., Nikam R., Wu Y. C., et al. (2017). Biopharmaceutical potentials of Prosopis spp. (Mimosaceae, Leguminosa). J. Food Drug Analysis 25, 187–196. doi: 10.1016/j/jfda.2016.11.001
Howari F. M., Sharma M., Nazzal Y., El-Keblawy A., Mir S., Xavier C. M., et al. (2022). Changes in the invasion rate of prosopis juliflora and its impact on depletion of groundwater in the northern part of the United Arab Emirates. Plants; 11, 682. doi: 10.3390/plants11050682
Hussain M. I., Shackleton R., El-Keblawy A., González L., Trigo M. M. (2021). Impact of the invasive prosopis juliflora on terrestrial ecosystems. Sustain. Agric. Reviews 52, 223–278. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-73245-5_7
Ilukor J., Rettberg S., Treydte A., Birner R. (2016). To eradicate or not to eradicate? Recommendations on Prosopis management in Afar, Ethiopia, from an interdisciplinary perspective. Pastoralism: Res. Policy Practice 6, 14. doi: 10.1186/s13570-016-0061-1
Inkermann H. (2014). “Gender aspects of Prosopis juliflora spread in Baadu area, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia - Perceptions, impacts and coping strategies,” in Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’ Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa’, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Proceedings of the Regional Conference: May 1 - May 2, 2014.
Kamiri H. W., Choge S. K., Becker M. (2024). Management strategies of prosopis juliflora in eastern africa: what works where? Diversity; 16, 251. doi: 10.3390/d16040251
Kipchirchir K. O., Kinuthia N. R., Githaiga W. R. (2014). “Use of prosopis juliflora seedpod as livestock feed supplement in the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Kenya,” in Science, Policy and Politics of Modern Agricultural System. Ed. Behnassi M., et al (Nairobi, Kenya). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7957-0_13
Koech G., Sola P., Wanjira E. O., Kirimi M., Rotich H., Njenga M. (2021).Charcoal production from invasive Prosopis in Baringo County, Kenya. Available online at: https://cifor.org/gml/sustainable-woodfuel (Accessed 28/10/2023).
Kumar S., Sharma Y. P., Radhakrishnan N. (2013). Fodder potential of Prosopis in a semi-arid region of India. Trop. Anim. Health Production 45, 245–251.
Laxén J. (2007). Is Prosopis a curse or a blessing? – An ecological-economic analysis of an invasive alien tree species in Sudan. PhD Dissertation. (Finland: University of Helsinki, University of Helsinki).
Mahgoub O., Kadim I., Forsberg N., Al-Ajmi D., Al-Saqry N., Al-Abri A., et al. (2005). Evaluation of meskit (Prosopis juliflroa) pods as a feed for goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 121, 319–327. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.01.016
Maitre D. C., van Wilgen B. W., Gelderblom C. M., C. Baileyb C., Chapman R. A., Nel J. A. (2002). Invasive alien trees and water resources in South Africa: case studies of the costs and benefits of management. For. Ecol. Management 160, 143–159. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00474-1
Maundu P., Kibet S., Morimoto Y., Imbumi M., Adeka R. (2009). Impact of Prosopis juliflora on Kenya’s semi-arid and arid ecosystems and local livelihoods. Biodiversity 10, 33–50. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2009.9712842
McConnachie M., van Wilgen B. C., McConnachie D. (2012). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of invasive alien plant clearing: A case study from South Africa. Biol. Conservation 155, 128–135. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.006
Mehari Z. H. (2015). The invasion of Prosopis juliflora and Afar pastoral livelihoods in the Middle Awash area of Ethiopia. Ecol. Processes 4, 13. doi: 10.1186/s13717-015-0039-8
Mesfin T. (2006). “Overview of prosopis control and FARM-africa’s experience in afar region,” in Proceeding of the Workshop on Afar Pastoralist Prosopis Project and Emerging Issues, April 7, 2006, Awash 7 kilo, Afar. (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).
Mishra A., Sharma S. D., Gupta M. K. (2003). Soil Rehabilitation through Afforestation: Evaluation of the Performance of Prosopis juliflora, Dalbergia sissoo and Eucalyptus tereticornis Plantations in a Sodic Environment. Arid Land Res. Manage. 17, 257–269. doi: 10.1080/15324980301597
Mutile M. C., Muli M. J., Muita G. M. (2021). Safety and Efficacy of Prosopis juliflora Leaf Extract as a Potential Treatment against Visceral Leishmaniasis in Balb/c Mice. Iran J. Parasitol. 16, 652–662. doi: 10.18502/ijpa.v16i4.7878
Muturi G. M. (2012). Ecological impacts of Prosopis invasion in riverine forests of Kenya. A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University. (Netherlands: Wageningen University). ISBN: 978-94-6173-402-0.
Mwangi E., Swallow B. (2005). Invasion of Prosopis juliflora and local livelihoods: A case study from the Lake Baringo area of Kenya. ICRAF Working Paper no. 3 (Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre).
Obonyo C. O., Zhu H., He W., Chinopfukutwa G. L. (2017). How do East African Communities Cope with the Impacts of Prosopis juliflora (Mesquite) Invasion? A Review J. Environ. Earth Sci. 7, 34–38.
Pandey C. B., Singh A. K., Saha D., Mathur B. K., Tewari J. C., Kumar M., et al. (2019). Prosopis (Swartz) DC.: an invasive alien in community grazing lands and its control through utilization in the Indian Thar Desert. Arid Land Res. Management 33 (4), 427–448. doi: 10.1080/15324982.2018.1564402
Pasiecznik N. (2018). Managing and Utilizing Prosopis Trees: A manual to support rural communities to “make Prosopis make money” (Hargeisa, Somaliland: PENHA), 34.
Pasiecznik N. M., Felker P., Harris P. J. C., Harsh L. N., Cruz G., Tewari J. C., et al. (2001). The Prosopis - Prosopis pallida Complex: A Monograph. HDRA, Coventry, UK. (UK: HDRA, Coventry) 172.
Patnaik P., Abbasi T., Abbasi S. A. (2017). Prosopis (Prosopis juliflora): blessing and bane. Trop. Ecol. 58, 455–483.
PENHA (2015). (Accessed Exploring Prosopis Management and Policy Options in the Greater Horn of Africa: proceedings of a regional conference organized by the Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa (PEHNA) in partnership with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Ethiopian Agropastoralist Development Association and University College London (UCL)).
Preeti K., Avatar S. R., Mala A. (2015). Pharmacology and therapeutic application of prosopis juliflora: A review. J. Plant Sci. 3, 234–240. doi: 10.11648/j.jps.20150304.20
Ram B., Nehra R., Kachhawaha S., Jainand D., Bias B. (2022). Feeding effect of Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) Pods on Growth Performance in Marwari Goats. Acta Sci. Veterinary Sci. 4, 86–92. doi: 10.31080/ASVS.2022.04.0469
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. doi: 10.3390/su13137369
Rembold F., Leonardi U., Ng W. T., Gadain H., Meroni M., Atzberger C. (2015). Mapping areas invaded by Prosopis juliflora in Somaliland with Landsat 8 imagery. Remote Sens. Agricult. Ecosystems Hydrol. 9637, 963723. doi: 10.1117/12.2193133
Rettberg S. (2014). “The spread of Prosopis juliflora in the wetlands of the Middle Awash Basin,” in Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’ Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa’. Proceedings of the Regional Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 1 - May 2, 2014.
Rogers P., Nunan F., Fentie A. A. (2017). Reimagining invasions: The social and cultural impacts of Prosopis on pastoralists in southern Afar, Ethiopia. Res. Policy Practice 7, 22. doi: 10.1186/s13570-017-0094-0
Saleh I., Abu-Dieyeh M. H. (2021). Novel Prosopis juliflora leaf ethanolic extract as a natural antimicrobial agent against food-spoiling microorganisms. Sci. Reports 11, 7871. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86509-3
Saleh A., Bibi A., Bibi S., Abu-Dieyeh M., Al-Ghouti M. A. (2023). Waste-to-value: Guidelines for the potential applications of Prosopis juliflora. Bioresource Technol. Reports 24, 101678. doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2023.101678
Sato T. (2013). Beyond water-intensive agriculture: Expansion of Prosopis juliflora and its growing economic use in Tamil Nadu, India. Land Use Policy 35, 283–292. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.001
Seid M. J., Bekele A. (2014). “Livelihood diversification option and its determinant,” in Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’ Managing Prosopis Juliflora for better (agro-) pastoral Livelihoods in the Horn of Africa’. Proceedings of the Regional Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, May 1 - May 2, 2014.
Seid O., Haji J., Legesse B. (2020). Rural households’ perception on the effects of Prosopis juliflora invasion: The case of Amibara District of Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia. Pastoralism Res. Policy Pract. 10, 21. doi: 10.1186/s13570-020-00174-1
Shackleton R. T., Le Maitre D. C., Pasiecznik N. M., Richardson D. M. (2014). Prosopis: a global assessment of the biogeography, benefits, impacts and management of one of the world’s worst woody invasive plant taxa. AoB Plants 6, plu027. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu027
Shackleton R. T., Le Maitre D. C., Richardson D. M. (2015). Stakeholder perceptions and practices regarding Prosopis (mesquite) invasions and management in South Africa. Ambio 44, 569–581. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0597-5
Sharma R., Dakshini K. M. M. (1998). Integration of plant and soil characteristics and the ecological success of two shape Prosopis species. Plant Ecol. 139, 63–69. doi: 10.1023/A:1009767503906
Sharma Y. P., Kumar S., Radhakrishnan N. (2012). Role of Prosopis plantations in reducing soil salinity in a semi-arid region of India. Ecol. Engineering 49, 30–35.
Shibru W. (2015). Socioeconomic and ecological impact of Prosopis juliflora in Lower Awash, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia. A thesis submitted to Indira Gandhi National Open University in partial fulfilment of the requirement for a Master of Arts in Rural Development, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, India.
Shiferaw W., Demissew S., Bekele T., Aynekulu E. (2022). Community perceptions towards invasion of Prosopis juliflora, utilization, and its control options in Afar region, Northeast Ethiopia. PloS One 17, e0261838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261838
Shitanda D., Mukonyi K., Kagiri M., Gichua M., Simiyu L. (2013). Properties of Prosopis juliflora and its potential uses in Asal areas of Kenya. JAGST; 15, 15–27.
Singh V. P., Tiwari A. K., Pandey R. P., Chourasia O. P. (2011). Potential of Prosopis for groundwater recharge in arid and semi-arid regions. Water Res. Management 25, 2759–2777.
Sola P., Wanjira E. O., Kirimi M., Rotich H., Njenga M. (2021). Charcoal production from invasive Prosopis juliflora in Baringo County, Kenya. Sustainable Wood Fuel Brief Series Brief 4. Available online at: https://cifor.org/gml/sustainable-woodfuel (Accessed June 2024, 2024).
Sweddy H. (2015). “Assessment of community awareness and perception on spread of invasive plant species along roads in Northern Tanzania,” in 25th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference on “Weed Science for Sustainable Agriculture, Environment and Biodiversity”, Hyderabad, India, 13-16 October, 2015.
Tessema Y. A. (2012). Ecological and Economic Dimensions of the Paradoxical Invasive Species- Prosopis juliflora and Policy Challenges in Ethiopia. J. Economics Sustain. Dev. 3 (8), 62–70. Available at: www.iiste.org.
Tewari I. C., Krishnan S. L., Harsha P. R., Bohra H. C. (2011). Prosopis juliflora: Past, Present and Future. Desert Environmental Conservation Association (DECO) (Jodhpur and Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhpur, IISp).
Utage B. G., Patole M. S., Nagvenkar P. V., Kamble S. S., Gacche R. N. (2018). Prosopis juliflora (Sw.), D.C. induces apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in triple-negative breast cancer cells: in vitro and in vivo investigations. Oncotarget 9, 30304–30323. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.25717
Wakie T., Evangelista P., Laituri M. (2012). Utilization Assessment of Prosopis juliflora in Afar Region, Ethiopia. US Forest Service, USDA Office of International Programs: USAID Pastoral Livelihoods Initiative II Project (PLI II). (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia).
Walter K. J., Armstrong K. V. (2014). Benefits, threats and potential of Prosopis in South India. Forests Trees Livelihoods 23, 232–247. doi: 10.1080/14728028.2014.919880
Wise R. M., van Wilgen B. W., Le Maitre D. C. (2012). Costs, benefits, and management options for an invasive alien tree species: the case of mesquite in the Northern Cape, South Africa. J. Arid Environments 84, 80–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.03.001
Keywords: Prosopis juliflora, economic benefits, health benefits, environmental benefits, management through utilization, pastoral and agropastoral community
Citation: Eshetu AA (2024) A valuable or a curse resource? A systematic review on expansion, perception of local community, benefits and side effects of Prosopis juliflora. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1491618. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1491618
Received: 05 September 2024; Accepted: 17 October 2024;
Published: 08 November 2024.
Edited by:
Dhananjaya Katju, American University, United StatesReviewed by:
Paul Robbins, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United StatesDebbie Bartlett, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2024 Eshetu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Amogne Asfaw Eshetu, YW11dmVudUB5YWhvby5jb20=
†ORCID: Amogne Asfaw Eshetu, orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-6312