Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Honey Mesquite Transpiration along a Vertical Site Gradient

1992, Journal of Range Management

https://doi.org/10.2307/4003078

Abstract

Honey mesquite (Prosopisglandulosa Torr.) occurs on a variety of sites varying in soil depth and moisture availability. The objective of this study was to compare water use by honey mesquite on upland, lowland, and riparian sites which were assumed to represent increasing levels of available soil moisture within a single watershed. Effects of the upland and lowland sites were evaluated in 1985. The rlparian site was evaluated with the other 2 sites in 1986. Soil moisture and average daily transpiration were greater (P<O.O5) on the upland than on the lowland site from mid-May to July in both years, and from mid-August through September 1986. These differences were attributed mainly to soil surface characteristics which created greater infiltration on the upland site. The riparian site was near an ephemeral stream and had a water table as shallow as 1.5 m. Soil water content was much greater for this site compared to the other 2 sites throughout 1986. Mesquite transpiration was greater on the riparian site than on the other sites during July 1986, when seasonal vapor pressure deficit was at maximum. However, transpiration was less on the riparian site than on the upland site during May and June 1986. Soil temperature was significantly lower on the riparian than on the upland site and potentially inhibited transpiration on the riparian site in May and June. The study demonstrated a positive relationship between water availability and transpiration by mesquite but did not support the hypothesis that water availability or transpiration was lowest on upland sites.

References (22)

  1. Ansley, R.J., P.W. Jncoby, and G.J. Cuomo. 1990. Water relations of honey mesquite following severing of lateral roots: Influence of location and amount of subsurface water.2. Range Manage. 43436-442.
  2. Ansley. R.J.. P.W. Jacobv. and B.K. Lawrence. 1992. Resoonse of differ- entially water-stressed honey mesquite to watering. J. Ahd Environ. (In Press).
  3. Bouyoucos, G.J. 1936. Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Sci. 42225228.
  4. Cable, D.R. 1977. Seasonal use of soil water by mature velvet mesquite. J. Range Manage. 304-l 1.
  5. Dahl,B.E., R.B. Wadley,M.R. George, and J.L. Talbot. 1971.Influence of site on mesquite mortality from 2,4,5-T. J. Range Manage. 24210-215.
  6. Dahl, B.E., R.E. Sosebee, J.P. Goen, and C.S. Brumley. 1978. Will mes- quite control with 2,4,5Tenhance forage production? J. Range Manage. 31:129-131.
  7. Easter, S.J., and R.E. Sosebee. 1975. Influence of soil-water potential on the water relationships of honey mesquite. J. Range Manage. 28230232.
  8. Heitschmidt, R.K., R.J. Ansley, S.L. Dowhower, P.W. Jacoby, and D.L. Price. 1988. Some observations from the excavation of honey mesquite root systems. J. Range Manage. 41:227-231.
  9. Koos, W.M., J.C. Williams, and M.L. Dixon. 1962. Soil survey of Wil- barger County, Texas. USDA Soil Conserv. Serv., Soil Surv. Ser. 1959 No. 18, Fort Worth, Tex.
  10. Ludwig, J.A. 1977. Distributional adaptations of root systems in desert environments. p. 85-91. in: J.K. Marshall (eds.). The below ground ecosystem: A synthesis of plant associated processes. Range Sci. Dept. Ser. 26, Colorado State Univ., Fort, Collins, Colo.
  11. Meyer, R.E. 1977. Seasonal response of honey mesquite to herbicides. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1174. College Sta.
  12. Mooney, H.A., B.B. Simpon, and O.T. SolbriB. 1977. Phenology, mor- phology, physiology, p. 26-43. In: B.B. Simpson (ed.), Mesquite, its biology in two desert shrub ecosystems. Halsted Press. N.Y.
  13. Nilsen, E.T., P.W. Rundd, and M.R. Sharifi. 1981. Summer water rela- tions of the desert phreatophyte Prosopis glandulosa in the Sonoran Desert of Southern California. Oecologia 50:271-276.
  14. Phillips, W.S. 1963. Depths of roots in soil. Ecology 44:424.
  15. Richards, L.A. 1965. Physical condition of water in soil. p. 128-152. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Amer. Sot. Agron. Monogr. 9.
  16. ScboIander, P.F., H.T. Hnmmel, E.D. Bradstreet, and E.A. Hamminpen. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science 148:339-346.
  17. Schulze, E.D., and A.E. Hall. 1982. Stomata1 responses, water loss and COs assimilation rates of plants in contrasting environments. Chap. 7, p. 181-224. In: O.L. Lange et al. (eds.) PhysioZogical Plant Ecology II, Vol. 12B. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
  18. Se&s, C.J. 1980. Brush management. Texas A&M Univ. Press. College Station.
  19. Sosebee, R.K., B.E. Dahl, and J.P. Goen. 1973. Factors affecting mesquite control with Tordon 225 mixture. J. Range Manage. 26369-37 1.
  20. Sosebee, R.E. 1983. Physiological, phenological, and environmental con- siderations in brush and weed control. n. 27-43. In: McDaniel, K.C. (ed.) Proc. Brush Management Symp. Sot. Range Manage. 36th Annu. Meet- ing, 16 Feb. 1983, Albuquerque, N.M.
  21. Thomas, G.W., and R.E. Sosebee. 1978. Water relations of honey mesquite-A facultative phreatophyte. p. 414-418. in: D.N. Hyder (ed.). Proc. 1st Int. Rangeland Congress. Denver, Colo.
  22. Wendt, C.W., R.H. Haas, and J.R. Runkles. 1968. Influence of selected environmental variables on the transpiration rate of honey mesquite [(Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa (Torr.) Cockr.]. Agron. J. 60~382-384.