A Review of Riparian

Mesquite and Crop

Water Use

Norm Mick Meader

Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance
Cascabel Conservation Association
February 2015

Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, P.O. Box 576, Mammoth, AZ 85618, http://lowersanpedro.org,
(520) 487-1903, lowersanpedro@gmail.com.
Cascabel Conservation Association, 6146 N. Cascabel Road, Benson, AZ 85602, http://cascabel
conservation.org, (520) 323-0092, nmeader@cox.net.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 2
ARIZONA YEARLY CROP WATER USE............................................................................... 3
Calculating Alfalfa Water Use Using a Reference Evapotranspiration and Crop
Coefficients ............................................................................................................................. 5
Water Use by Other Crops and Riparian Vegetation ........................................................... 6
Irrigation Efficiency and Crop Water Budgets ....................................................................... 8
Double Cropping .................................................................................................................... 9
Deficit Irrigation and Water Duty .......................................................................................... 9
QUANTIFYING RIPARIAN MESQUITE WATER USAGE ............................................... 10
Early Studies ........................................................................................................................... 10
Gila River, Safford, Arizona 19431944 .............................................................................. 10
Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Tombstone, Arizona 19651967 .......................... 11
San Pedro River, 1990 .......................................................................................................... 12
Santa Cruz River, Nogales, Arizona, 1995 ........................................................................... 13
San Pedro River, Lewis Springs (Sierra Vista), Arizona, 1997 ............................................ 14
New Studies ............................................................................................................................. 14
Comparison of Mesquite and Sacaton Grassland Data Sets .............................................. 18
Data Set 1.............................................................................................................................. 18
Data Set 2.............................................................................................................................. 19
Data Set 3.............................................................................................................................. 20
Other Studies .......................................................................................................................... 20
Comparing Mesquite Woodland Evapotranspiration Throughout the Year ................... 22
Reasons for Lower Mesquite Water Usage .......................................................................... 23
Mesquite dormancy ...............................................................................................................23
Hydraulic redistribution and storage of precipitation..........................................................25
Limited canopy ground coverage..........................................................................................26
Arid-adapted leaf structure and physiology .........................................................................26
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 27
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 28
ALFALFA AND CROP-RELATED REFERENCES ............................................................. 31
MESQUITE AND RIPARIAN REFERENCES ...................................................................... 34
APPENDIX A: Mesquite evapotranspiration and groundwater use calculated in early
studies ...................................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B: Detailed Review of Qashu (1966), Qashu and Evans (1967) and Tromble
(1972) ....................................................................................................................................... 39

i
 LIST OF FIGURES
Main Text Figures
Figure 1. Seasonal use of water by Arizona alfalfa .....................................................................5
Figure 2. Average yearly crop coefficient for 2010 for alfalfa grown in the Imperial Valley ....6
Figure 3. Location of the Charleston and Lewis Springs study sites .........................................15
Figure 4. Location of major vegetation communities with respect to the river channel and
groundwater ................................................................................................................16
Figure 5. Charleston riparian mesquite woodland .....................................................................16
Figure 6. Lewis Springs riparian mesquite shrubland ...............................................................17
Figure 7. Lewis Springs sacaton grassland ................................................................................17
Figure 8. Location of the Mojave River north of the San Bernardino Mountains, southern
California ....................................................................................................................21
Figure 9. Comparison of annual evapotranspiration for mesquite and sacaton with the annual
standard crop reference evapotranspiration, ETo .......................................................23
Figure 10. Figure 2b from Nagler et al. (2013) showing the evapotranspiration for the three San
Pedro River communities (ETa) .................................................................................24
Figure 11. Evapotranspiration of the three communities through the year for 2003 ...................24
Figure 12. A. Downward transfer (hydraulic redistribution) of precipitation via the mesquite
tap root at night during the summer monsoon season ................................................25
Figure 13. Hydraulic redistribution (downward transfer) of winter precipitation by mesquite
during the dormant winter and early spring months...................................................26

Box Figures
Figure B1. Evapotranspiration ......................................................................................................4
Figure B2. Calculating the evapotranspiration of a crop (ETc) from the reference
evapotranspiration (ETo) ............................................................................................4

Appendix Figures
Figure A1. Google Earth view of the Qashu and Tromble site on Walnut Gulch ......................39
Figure A2. Diurnal water-level changes for 1965 in a well associated with the mesquite
woodland ...................................................................................................................40
Figure A4. Transpiration values calculated for the mesquite woodland from diurnal changes in
water well levels .......................................................................................................41
Figure A4. Water level fluctuations for 19641965 in the water well associated with the
Walnut Gulch mesquite site ......................................................................................42
Figure A5. Variation in measurements of specific yield with time for Nebraska alluvium .......44

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Arizona annual alfalfa water use....................................................................................3
Table 2. Comparison of Arizona crop water use with riparian vegetation water use ....................... 7
Table 3. Field crop applied water budgets for 19992000 for Arizona desert lowland counties 8
Table 4. Comparison of mesquite and sacaton water-use data sets ...........................................18
Table 5. Mesquite, cottonwoodwillow, and saltcedar riparian evapotranspiration along the
Mojave River, Southern California, averaged for 2007 and 2010 ...............................22
Table A1. Mesquite evapotranspiration and groundwater use calculated from all studies ..........38

ii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mesquite water use has generated increasing concern in recent years in the West because of
dwindling water supplies. Some in the agricultural community have even claimed that it uses
more water than alfalfa, our highest water use crop. To address these concerns and claims this
paper reviews mesquite water use in riparian areas where it is highest and compares it with
agricultural use.

The most recent studies of riparian mesquite in Arizona show that average evapotranspiration
(ET) for a mature woodland with 70%74% ground cover is between 27.2" and 28.6" (692 and
727 mm) per year. For a less-mature woodland (shrubland) with 50%55% ground cover, it is
between 22.2" and 26.0" (564 and 660 mm) per year. These values are for groundwater-
dependent mesquite, which accesses and uses several times the water that upland mesquite does.

When precipitation is removed from these values to obtain groundwater use, mature mesquite
woodland is found to use between 17.7" and 19.3" (449 and 490 mm) per year, while mesquite
shrubland uses between 11.0 and 15.0 (279 and 381 mm) per year. If the mesquite canopy is
scaled to cover 100% of the ground area, groundwater use for a mature woodland would be
25.2"26.0" (641660 mm) per year.

In contrast, average annual Arizona alfalfa evapotranspiration is about 72" (1829 mm) per year.
This value does not reflect total applied water, which can range from 85+" (2160+ mm) per year
with center pivot irrigation to more than 100" (2540 mm) per year with flood irrigation. The
amount of alfalfa evapotranspiration derived from groundwater would be 60" or greater given
Arizonas annual average precipitation. Most of Arizonas other major crops also use more water
than mesquite woodland except barley and wheat, which use similar or slightly less amounts.
These data show that mesquite does not use vastly more water than agricultural crops as some
believe.

Removing mesquite from riparian areas and replacing it with cultivated crops or irrigated pasture
will thus not reduce water loss or improve stream-flow conditions. While allowing mesquite to
reclaim abandoned agricultural fields will gradually result in increased groundwater use if the
water table is sufficiently shallow, that use will not exceed preceding agricultural use unless fields
were fallowed for part of the time. For forage crops such as irrigated pasture and alfalfa, fields
would have to be fallowed for up to two-thirds or more of the time to reduce groundwater use to
that of the average mesquite woodland. Even at full reestablishment, mesquite woodland would
use substantially less than half the groundwater that irrigated forage crops do.

Mesquite uses less water for four reasons: (1) mesquite is dormant for approximately half the
year, whereas forage crops such as alfalfa are grown for nine months of the year or more, (2)
mesquite harvests rainwater and stores it in deeper soil layers for use in drier times, reducing
groundwater use, (3) in contrast to most crops, the mesquite canopy usually covers significantly
less than 100% of the ground surface, reducing total evapotranspiration, and (4) native mesquite
is physiologically adapted to an arid environment whereas most cultivated crops are not. Just as
with other riparian vegetation, mesquite woodland becomes stressed with falling groundwater
levels and will begin to die back in response.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Mesquite has a widespread reputation for water use, which has generated concern in Texas and the
Southwest where water supplies are limited. Mesquite is known for its ability to access and exploit
groundwater in arid riparian areas and to outcompete grass for water on uplands. This reputation
has led some to consider all mesquite to be detrimental to water availability in a watershed, most
importantly where it is replacing existing vegetation or reclaiming agricultural land. Some in the
agricultural community have claimed that mesquite uses almost twice as much water as alfalfa at
all times, implying that mesquites water consumption greatly exceeds even that of our most water-
intensive crop.

In response to the concern about mesquites water use, the Arizona State legislature passed a bill in
2014 prohibiting the use of Water Protection Fund money to protect and restore riparian mesquite
while allowing funds to be used to remove mesquite in all environments throughout a watershed.
The act classifies mesquites as high water use trees that consume water to a degree that is
detrimental to water conservation efforts. The presumption is that any mesquite removal benefits
the watershed and riparian areas. Given the impact that perceptions of mesquite have had on
policy, it is important to quantify mesquites actual water use, particularly in riparian areas where
its use is greatest. This review thus summarizes the literature on this use and compares it with crop
use, most importantly for alfalfa, a standard reference crop.

Very little work had been done on riparian mesquite water use until the late 1990s when the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture began studies along
the San Pedro River in Arizona. This was in part a response to the establishment of the San
Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and the need to determine the full water budget for
the watershed to protect river flow. The most extensive work on mesquite riparian water use is
that of Russell Scott of the ARS and his colleagues in the U.S. Geological Survey (Scott et al.,
2006b; Scott et al., 2008b). They focused on both dense mesquite woodland (74% ground cover)
and less-dense mesquite shrubland (55% ground cover). These studies have become the
benchmark for assessing mesquite riparian water use and are the basis of the conclusions
presented in this review. While earlier studies attempted to address the issue, none approaches
the thoroughness and sophistication of these studies.

Regarding crop water use, Arizona agriculture depends almost wholly on external water sources
or groundwater, and crop water use has been extensively measured and quantified to optimize
water delivery. Cultivation of alfalfa for forage is one of Arizonas most important crops and
occupies more than 25% of Arizonas irrigated acreage. Numerous studies show that annual
alfalfa evapotranspiration in southern Arizona is between 70" and 80" (Table 1). The most
complete available summary of general Arizona crop water use is that by Erie et al. (1982),
which this report uses. Data from newer studies are used whenever possible, however.

This review does not address mesquite water use in upland regions away from riparian areas.
That topic is left for another time. Studies have shown that mesquite readily accesses deeper soil
moisture in these environments and can outcompete grass for water. Mesquites overall effect on
the hydrology of arid grasslands is not fully understood and remains controversial, which has led
to considerable debate over whether and how to manage mesquite in that environment. This
review also does not compare the riparian habitat value of native mesquite with that of irrigated
crops or other groundcovers, another potentially contentious issue.

2
 ARIZONA YEARLY CROP WATER USE

Alfalfa is a standard reference crop whose water use has been compared with that of mesquite to
emphasize mesquites water consumption. Table 1 summarizes the available literature on alfalfa
water use to accurately compare the two, and Figure 1 shows Arizona alfalfa water use throughout
the year. Primary water use by plants is measured in terms of evapotranspiration, which is a
combination of water evaporated from the stomata of plant leaves and plant tissues and water
evaporated from the soil beneath the plants. Evapotranspiration is measured in millimeters or
inches of water over a given period of time. Box 1 explains evapotranspiration along with
reference crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficients. Farmers must at times apply much more
water than all plants in a field can use to ensure that all parts of a field have sufficient water.

Table 1. Arizona annual alfalfa water use.

Source Evapotranspiration Comments
ADWR (1999) 56.3"74.3" (1829 mm) Second value is adapted from
Erie et al. (1982); origin of first
value is unknown
Brown (2008) 72" (1829 mm) For low-desert production
Erie et al. (1982) 74.3"80" From University of Arizona
(18802032 mm) farms in Mesa and Tempe
Hanson et al. (2011) 56"65" Calculated from eddy covariance
(14221651 mm) data for Imperial Valley; lower
than historical value of 76"
Hunsaker et al. (2002) 76" (1930 mm) Confirmed by personal
communication
Martin et al. (1994) 72" (1829 mm) Western Arizona alfalfa
Martin et al. (2004) up to 84" (2134 mm) California average is 60"-66";
use is up to 7 ft (84") in southern
CA and AZ
Ottman (2010) 80.5" (2045 mm) Applied water, two irrigations/
cutting, controlled conditions. UA
Maricopa Agricultural Center.
Putnam and Ottman (2002) 72"to >84" 72" is for active management
(18292134 mm) areas; argued to be too low for
optimum crop production.
Snyder and Bali (2008) 90" (2286 mm) For Indio, California, 8 cuttings
UA Cooperative Extension (n.d.) 74" (1880 mm) Phoenix area (presumably from
Erie et al., 1982)
Yearly alfalfa water use/evapotranspiration values cluster around 72" (1829 mm). Growers often
exceed this amount in what they apply, however, to ensure that the crop is not stressed, as noted
above. Values for applied (irrigation) water are higher than evapotranspiration values due to the
inefficiency of water distribution and use. Efficiency varies from ~70%90% (UA Extension
Service, 2001; Brown, 2008; Martin, 2011).
Alfalfa water use is typically tied to cuttings per year, with a given number of inches applied per
cutting. Eight to ten cuttings per year are common in Arizona (UA Cooperative Extension, n.d.),
with an average time between cuttings of 30 days (Brown, 2008). Sundance Farms in Coolidge,

3
 BOX 1: DEFINITIONS
Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water from a
vegetated surface from plant transpiration and soil
evaporation (Figure B1) and is frequently considered
consumptive use. Transpiration is the loss of water from
plants by evaporation mostly through the stomata of the
leaves.
Important environmental factors that affect ET include
solar radiation, temperature, atmospheric dryness (vapor
pressure deficit or humidity), wind and soil moisture.
Biological factors that affect ET include vegetation type,
foliage geometry and foliage density. Figure B1. Evapotranspiration. From Salinity
Management (2007).
Reference Evapotranspiration
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is an estimate of the water used by a well-watered, full-cover grass
surface 12 cm (5") in height (the reference crop) and is used to calculate crop water needs. Cool-season
grass (e.g., rye grass) and alfalfa have been used as reference surfaces for ET estimation for several
decades. ETo is computed from meteorological parameters (temperature, wind speed, humidity, etc.) and
varies throughout the day and year. Daily values are summed together to provide total yearly water use.

Crop Coefficients
Because evapotranspiration accounts for most of the water lost from the soil during crop growth,
estimates of evapotranspiration rates are important in scheduling irrigation. To determine how much
water a specific crop needs, a correction factor or crop coefficient (Kc) is required to convert ETo to ETc,
the crop evapotranspiration (Figure B2).

ETo Kc = ETc
Figure B2. Calculating the evapotranspiration of a crop (ETc) from the reference evapotranspiration (ETo).
Modified from Brown and Kopec (2000).

A well-accepted crop coefficient for Arizona alfalfa is 0.95. To determine how much water would be
required to grow alfalfa year round at the Charleston mesquite site, one would multiply this coefficient
times the yearly ETo for the site, which for 20012003 was 1774 mm or 69.84" (Scott et al., 2006a).
Alfalfa would thus need 1685 mm or 66.34" of water per year here.

4
Figure 1. Seasonal use of water by Arizona alfalfa. Alfalfa is relatively dormant from December through mid-
February, and no water use is allocated for those months. Data are from University of Arizona farms in Mesa and
Tempe, Arizona. From Erie et al. (1982).

Arizona, typically leaves 2830 days between cuttings and cuts nine times each year (Blake,
2009). The Heaven Sent Ranch in the lower San Pedro Valley near Cascabel gets 89 cuttings
each year (Rogers Heaven Sent Ranch, n.d.). Arizona alfalfa fields are commonly dormant for a
few months in the winter.

Calculating Alfalfa Water Use Using a Reference Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficients

Alfalfa yearly evapotranspiration values can be calculated for a given location using an Arizona
Meteorological (AZMET) evapotranspiration value (ETo) determined for a reference crop at a
specific site, typically a cool-season short-crop grass such as rye or fescue. This value is then
multiplied by a crop coefficient for alfalfa to obtain water use. Box 1 explains the procedure.
Using this approach and the ETo values of the mesquite woodland and shrubland sites in Scott et
al. (2006b) provides the most accurate comparison of water use.
Brown (2008) gives an Arizona crop coefficient for alfalfa of 0.95, which is also the standard
value given for Imperial Valley by Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977). Hanson (n.d.) provides a graph
of daily crop coefficients for alfalfa for Imperial Valley, with a yearly average value of 0.977
(Figure 2, calculated from the figure). Data in Hansen et al. (2011) give an average value of 0.94
(excluding one outlier) for the years 20072010. Thus 0.95 is used for calculations here.

5
Figure 2. Average yearly crop coefficient for 2010 for alfalfa grown in the Imperial Valley. Crop coefficients vary
hourly and daily with the weather and need to be averaged to calculate total yearly water use. The fluctuations in
values indicate that the alfalfa was cut nine times during the year. The crop coefficient drops sharply when the
alfalfa is cut because of the greatly reduced leaf area. Modified from Hansen (n.d.).

Scott et al. (2006b) give a reference evapotranspiration ETo of 1774 mm (69.84") for the
Charleston mesquite woodland site and 1778 mm (70.00") for the Lewis Springs mesquite
shrubland site. These values were calculated by the PenmanMonteith method and must be
converted to AZMET (Arizona Meteorological Network) values to use with this crop coefficient.
Using the AZMETPenman ratio from the Safford meteorological site (Brown, 2005) increases
these values to 1890 mm (74.41) and 1894 mm (74.57), respectively. The actual ratio of the two
ETo values for the site is unknown, however, and the accuracy of this is questionable. Using
these two values with the alfalfa crop coefficient of 0.95 gives an annual alfalfa
evapotranspiration at these sites of 1796 mm (70.69") and 1799 mm (70.84"), respectively.
These values provide a conservative basis for comparing mesquite water use.

Water Use by Other Crops and Riparian Vegetation

To more fully compare mesquite and agricultural water use, Table 2 lists the water use for San
Pedro River riparian plant communities from Scott et al. (2006b) and (2008b) and water use by
common Arizona crops grown in southern Arizona. This table excludes vegetable crops. Many
of the crop water values are taken from Erie et al. (1982) and were determined by the soil
moisture depletion method using gravimetric analysis. The data were derived from irrigation
treatments that resulted in near-maximum crop production. Drainage was not considered, which
may make some of the values high. This study is still considered to provide the best overall
Arizona crop water use data for many crops, however (M. Ottman, personal communication,
2014).

6
Table 2. Comparison of Arizona crop water use with riparian vegetation water use.
Yearly
Crop or Vegetation Evapotranspiration Source or Notes
Alfalfa 74.3"80" Erie et al. (1982)
(18872032 mm)
Giant bermuda grass 60"72"1 Desert Sun Marketing Company (2014),
(15241829 mm) Phoenix, Arizona
Permanent pasture mix 68.0" (1727 mm)1 ADWR (1999), Phoenix Active Manage-
ment Area
Bermuda/rye pasture 54"66" P. Brown, pers. comm. (2014); adapted
(13721676 mm) from Brown and Kopec (2000) and Brown et
al. (2001) for San Pedro Valley
Mixed-grass pasture 48"72"1 Young et al. (1984), 4,0006,000 ft
(12191816 mm) elevation
Pecans 54"70" ADWR (1999), Phoenix Active Manage-
(13721778 mm) ment Area
Pecans 39"57.5" Skaggs et al. (2008), New Mexico; applied
(10001460 mm) water up to 76" (1940 mm)
Double-cropped forage 54.2" (1377 mm) Erie et al. (1982), wheat often double-
sorghum cropped instead of sorghum
Blue panic grass 52.3" (1328 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Grapefruit 47.9" (1217 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Safflower 45.5" (1156 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Bermuda lawn grass 43.5" (1104 mm) Erie et al. (1982), May-October season
Sugar beets 42.8" (1087 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Cotton 41.2" (1046 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Cotton 38"42" Hunsaker et al. (2005a), 42"48" applied
(9651067 mm) water, highly controlled conditions
Naval oranges 38.1" (968 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Cottonwoodwillow 38.0" (966 mm) Scott et al. (2006b), Lewis Springs site,
San Pedro River, perennial water
Flax 31.3" (795 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Saltcedar (tamarisk) 29.5" (750 mm) Dahm et al. (2002), Rio Grande River,
unflooded stand
Mesquite woodland 28.6 (727 mm) Scott et al. (2008b), Charleston site, San
Pedro River
Cotton (short season) 28.5" (724 mm) Watson and Sheedy (1992), 1991 value
Mesquite riparian 26.0" (661 mm) Scott et al. (2008b), Lewis Springs site,
shrubland San Pedro River
Wheat 23.3"25.6" Hunsaker et al. (2005b)
(591624 mm)
Single-cropped grain 25.4" (645 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
sorghum
Sacaton grassland 25.3" (643 mm) Scott et al. (2008b), Lewis Springs site,
San Pedro River
Barley 25.0 (635 mm) Erie et al. (1982)
Cottonwoodwillow 19.1 (484 mm) Scott et al. (2006b), Boquillas site, San
intermittent water Pedro River
1
Applied water assumed; evapotranspiration not available.

7
Irrigation Efficiency and Crop Water Budgets

Yearly crop evapotranspiration values do not consider additional water consumption resulting
from inefficiency factors associated with each irrigation method (flood, sprinkler and drip).
Table 3 gives crop water budgets for several Arizona counties that demonstrate this. These were
compiled by the University of Arizonas Cooperative Extension Service for 19992000
(Teegerstrom and Clark, 1999). These are the last set that the University of Arizona compiled,
and how these may have changed as irrigation practices have changed is unknown. All values
are for furrow (flood) irrigation on selected farms in each Arizona county. Presumably these
farms have been laser-leveled, which increases irrigation efficiency.

Table 3. Field crop applied water budgets for 19992000 for Arizona desert lowland counties.
Grain Sorghum Pima Upland
County/Area Alfalfa Barley Wheat Corn (Single Crop) Cotton Cotton
Cochise County, 68" * 40" 48" 42" 40" 37"
Kansas Settlement
Graham County, 84" 44" 44" 48" 44" 60" 54"
Safford Valley
Greenlee County, 78" * 46" 36" 48" 48"
Duncan Valley
La Paz County, 79" P * 35" P 43" P 36" P 55" P 50" P
Parker and Salome 42" S 62" S
Maricopa County, 90" 32" 34" * 36" 72" 61"
Salt River Project
Mohave County, 85" 35" * * 60"
Mohave Valley
Pima County, 72" 36" 36" * 30" 48" 42"
Marana
Pinal County 79" 32" 32" 43" 44" 60" 49"
Yuma County, 85" 35" 39" * 36" 60" 42"
Yuma Valley N/S
*Crop not grown on surveyed farm.

P = Parker; S = Salome.

As noted previously, efficiency can vary from approximately 70%90% (UA Extension Service,
2001; Brown, 2008; Martin, 2011). This is to say, if evapotranspiration for healthy alfalfa is
72"/year (1829 mm/year), to achieve this with 70% efficiency, common for flood irrigation, one
must apply 103" (2616 mm) of water per year. This is reflected in the amounts of water used to
grow alfalfa by Sundance Farms near Coolidge, Arizona, which applies 8"/cutting for drip
irrigation vs. 12"/cutting for flood irrigation (Blake, 2009). Sundance Farms cuts alfalfa 9
times/year, resulting in an annual water use of 72"108" depending on the irrigation method.
Water applied through drip irrigation essentially matches the consumptive water use of alfalfa,
demonstrating the methods much greater efficiency.

Other crops also use additional water. While evapotranspiration for well-watered Arizona wheat
is given as 25.8" (655 mm) per year, the amount of water needed to achieve this is 42.0" (1067
mm) with flood irrigation and 34.8" (884 mm) with a sprinkler system (Moore et al., 1990).

8
Husman and Ottman (2004) also note the need to apply 36"42" (9141016 mm) of water by
flood irrigation to meet the consumptive needs of wheat and barley, which they estimated to be
approximately 24" (610 mm).

To achieve the evapotranspiration of 41.2"/year (1046 mm/year, Erie et al. 1982 value) for
cotton requires 57.6" (1463 mm) of water with flood irrigation and 46.8" (1189 mm) with a
sprinkler system (Moore et al., 1990). These values represent flood and sprinkler irrigation
efficiencies for wheat of 61% and 71%, respectively, and for cotton of 74% and 90%,
respectively. While some of this additional water may be recovered for reuse, not all of it is, and
it is eventually lost through deep soil drainage, evaporation or runoff.

This contrasts with how mesquite uses water. While riparian mesquite does use significantly
more water than non-riparian arid-land plants, it uses that water efficiently. It does not waste it
as irrigated crops can. In addition, mesquite routinely harvests and stores excess precipitation in
deeper soil layers for later use, which cultivated crops do not do. (See the Reasons for Lower
Mesquite Water Usage section.)

Double Cropping

Two crops per year may be grown on the same acreage, known as double-cropping. This
practice makes the most efficient use of farm land. Wheat is commonly double-cropped with
sorghum to make full use of the growing season. Wheat is planted in early winter and then
harvested in late May or June. Sorghum is then planted in June and harvested in September.
The yearly evapotranspiration and is the sum of both crops, which in this case would be 25.8" +
25.4" = 51.2" (1300 mm). Applied water must be summed also, which would be up to 80" (2032
mm).

Double-cropping is also commonly done with bermuda grass and a cool-season grass such as rye
to maintain year-long irrigated pastures or lawns. For forage, bermuda grass is often grown from
late May through the end of September, and then rye or another cool-season grass is seeded over
this to provide forage through the late fall, winter and early spring. The combined yearly
evapotranspiration for this grass mixture in the lower San Pedro Valley would be 60" (1524 mm)
10% to compensate for grazing intensity (P. Brown personal communication, 2014; adapted
from Brown and Kopec, 2000; Brown, 2001; and Brown et al., 2001). Total applied water could
be up to 20" (508 mm) greater to compensate for irrigation inefficiency.

Deficit Irrigation and Water Duty

A practice that reduces irrigation water consumption is deficit irrigation, when less water is
applied to a crop than is needed to meet its full evapotranspiration needs. While increasing
irrigation efficiency and saving water, this practice reduces crop yields. The amount of applied
water may still exceed the full evapotranspiration needs of the plant because of irrigation
inefficiency, noted above. Deficit irrigation can cut water requirements by up to 30% or more,
depending on how great a reduction in yield a farmer or rancher is willing to accept. In its 1991
report on the hydrology of the San Pedro River for the Gila River Adjudication (ADWR, 1991),
the Arizona Department of Water Resources estimated that 12.4% of the acreage under irrigation
in the San Pedro basin was deficit irrigated based on field examinations.

9
Another important concept is water duty, the amount of water required to be applied in a given
agricultural area above precipitation to meet the full water requirements of all crops. This is
computed from a combination of crop evapotranspiration requirements and irrigation efficiency.
ADWR (1991) calculated average water duties for the five subwatersheds of the San Pedro River
basin that ranged from 4.68 acre-feet (56.16" acre-inches) in the Sierra Vista subwatershed to
5.71 acre-feet (68.5" acre-inches) in the Redington subwatershed. The much higher duty for the
Redington subwatershed stems from lower overall irrigation efficiency and the much higher
percentage of pasture grass grown there.

QUANTIFYING RIPARIAN MESQUITE WATER USAGE

Early Studies

Only four mesquite water-use field studies predate those by Scott and colleagues, three of them
focusing on groundwater fluctuations in wells within woodland areas (Gatewood et al., 1950,
Qashu, 1966, and Tromble, 1972). The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR, 1991)
subsequently used Gatewoods determinations to extrapolate mesquite water use along the San
Pedro River as part of proceedings for the Gila River Adjudication. Unland et al. (1998) was the
first investigator to use advanced meteorological instrumentation and the Bowen-ratio method to
attempt to measure mesquite ET. She did this work in 1995. Other than these studies, no other
work had been done on water use by riparian mesquite prior to Scotts work.

In 1997 Scott and colleagues established their initial mesquite study site on the San Pedro River
at Lewis Springs east of Sierra Vista, Arizona. They, too, used the Bowen-ratio method, and
provided initial results on a fairly sparse mesquite shrubland site. Scott later abandoned this site
for better-located ones and switched to eddy covariance instrumentation to undertake the main
studies examined in this report. Appendix A summarizes mesquite evapotranspiration and
groundwater use determined by these early studies.

Gila River, Safford, Arizona 19431944

Gatewood et al. (1950) were given the task of determining the water use by phreatophytes along
the Gila River downstream from Safford, Arizona, between Calva and Ft. Thomas, originally to
salvage water for mining. While they attempted to determine total vegetation water use by six
methods, they evaluated evapotranspiration of specific vegetation types by only two methods, (1)
measurement of plant water use by plants grown in tanks, and (2) measurement of daily
fluctuations in the water table due to plant transpiration in the natural environment (transpiration-
well method). Mesquite was the only plant for which evapotranspiration was measured only by
the transpiration-well method, and then only one well was used. This method is questionable
because of the difficulty in determining specific yield (sediment porosity principally) and the
areal extent of vegetation contributing to the effect. In addition, the results could not be
replicated for the two years for which measurements were made.

With this method Gatewood and colleagues determined an average annual mesquite groundwater
use of 826 mm (32.52") at 100% canopy coverage. They added 180 mm (7.08") of precipitation
to this average value to obtain a yearly evapotranspiration rate of 39.6" (1006 mm). These data

10
are questionable, however, because they are derived by averaging highly discordant data for July
through October for 1943 and 1944. The 1944 values for these four months declined by 45%
from 1943. No declines of this magnitude occurred for six other data sets for other vegetation
from other transpiration wells, four of which were located near the mesquite well. Transpiration
values for those four sites for July through October for 1943 and 1944 were similar and
consistent. If the anomalous 1943 mesquite values are excluded and the full-year 1944 values
are used alone, then yearly groundwater use at 100% canopy coverage would be 26.3" (668 mm).
Adding 7.08" of precipitation would result in 33.38" (848 mm) total evapotranspiration.

While groundwater use was scaled for 100% canopy coverage, the actual canopy coverage for
the 984 acres of mesquite in the study area was only 47.54%. Using the original averaged data
would yield an annual woodland groundwater use over this area of 15.46" (393 mm). If only the
1944 data were used, this would yield an annual mesquite groundwater usage of 12.50" (317.5
mm). If one assumes that most precipitation evaporates or is transpired and contributes to ET
regardless of the percentage of ground cover by vegetation, mesquite annual ET would be 22.54"
(573 mm) and 19.58 (497 mm), respectively.

While using the transpiration-well method to obtain these values is questionable, they are similar
to those that Scott et al. (2006b) obtained for the Lewis Springs mesquite shrubland (immature
woodland) on the San Pedro River. That site had 50%55% canopy coverage, similar to the Gila
River site, with total annual ET being 26.0" (661 mm) and mesquite groundwater use being 15.0"
(381 mm). While this correspondence may be fortuitous, it is consistent.

Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed, Tombstone, Arizona 19651967

Qashu (1966) and Qashu and Evans (1966) attempted to measure the evapotranspiration of a
small, confined mesquite woodland in the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed of
southeastern Arizona with the transpiration-well method using Whites (1932) approach.
Tromble (1972) then expanded this year-long study with two more years of data. The studies
obtained growing-season water-use data for May and June only and did not collect values for the
four remaining months (July to October). Once the summer monsoon season began, daily
groundwater fluctuations ceased because of recharge, and no further measurements were
possible. For a complete discussion of the Qashu and Tromble studies, see Appendix B.

Tromble (1972) states that the woodland had a canopy coverage of 80% and was growing above
a perched water table, which was at a depth of ~34 m (1013 ft) during the period of
measurement. Granodiorite bedrock was as shallow as 1.5 m (5 ft), with pockets of deeper
sediment within it. The water-bearing alluvial layer was less than 2 m (6.5 ft) thick in places,
with the underlying bedrock acting as a barrier to deeper percolation. The study first measured
the rate of groundwater decline through subsurface seepage into bedrock during the winter. This
value was then subtracted from summer groundwater fluctuations to calculate actual
transpiration use.

During the peak water-use period in June, the primary well used to measure groundwater levels
recorded daily groundwater fluctuations of up to 20 cm compared to 34 cm measured by Qashu.
Tromble converted these fluctuations to a daily transpiration rate by following Troxells (1936)

11
modification of Whites (1932) method. Tromble incorporated Qashus (1966) results and
determined an average daily transpiration rate for the first three weeks of June of 10.7 mm
(0.421") and a total ET for April 1 to June 23 of 383 mm (15.08"). This value was exceedingly
high when compared with Gatewoods results.

Extrapolating the canopy coverage to 100% would give a mesquite daily evapotranspiration rate
of 13.4 mm/day for June, twice that determined by Gatewood et al. (1950) for mesquite along
the Gila River, calculated at 6.7 mm/day. Trombles daily value of 10.7 mm is also greater than
the approximate reference evapotranspiration for the area, ~8.8 mm/day (AZMET method),
which is not physically feasible. While Tromble cautioned that advection of hotter, drier air
from nearby desert scrub areas would increase the ET rate, the rate should not exceed the
reference ET.

The most likely source of error is an overestimation of aquifer porosity and specific yield, which
would result in higher calculated transpiration values. An aerial review of the site shows that in
some areas mesquite is growing directly on exposed granodiorite bedrock and must be obtaining
its water from fractures within it. Mesquite would also be doing this in areas of shallow
sediment thickness. The groundwater aquifer is thus effectively a combination of bedrock and
local sand and gravel, which would greatly reduce the aquifers effective porosity and result in a
disproportional drawdown of water in the alluvium when transpiration occurred. Erroneous
assumptions in the calculation methods could also contribute to the error.

San Pedro River, 1990

In 1990 the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) attempted to determine water use
by mesquite in the San Pedro River basin as part of proceedings for the Gila River Adjudication.
ADWR did not measure these values but calculated them from the annual mesquite consumptive
use given in the Gatewood et al. (1950). Thus the ADWR study does not actually provide
additional measurements of mesquite water use. ADWR determined an annual water-use
coefficient (or crop coefficient) for mesquite from Gatewoods ET value by calculating a
reference evapotranspiration for the Safford area using the Blaney-Criddle method. ADWR then
multiplied that coefficient, determined to be 0.622, by reference evapotranspiration values (ETo)
calculated from meteorological data for four stretches of the San Pedro River. While the Blaney-
Criddle method is considered less reliable than Arizonas AZMET or the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE or Penman-Monteith) method, it is commonly used in legal proceedings.

ADWR defined two types of San Pedro River riparian mesquite: (1) dense mesquite composed
of 80% canopy and 20% bare ground, and (2) medium-dense mesquite composed of 40% canopy
and 60% bare ground. From the method described above, ADWR calculated total consumptive
use (evapotranspiration) of dense mesquite to be 884 mm (34.81") and of medium-dense
mesquite to be 613 mm (24.12") (ADWR, 1991). ADWR assumed that these amounts contained
127 mm (5") of effective precipitation, giving a groundwater use of 757 mm (29.81") and 486
mm (19.12"), respectively. If ADWR had used just Gatewoods 1944 full-year data, excluding
the questionable 1943 data, these ET values would be reduced to 744 mm (29.28") and 516 mm
(20.29"), respectively, with groundwater use being 624 mm (24.58") and 388 mm (15.29"),
respectively.

12
Using such a small value for effective precipitation in an arid environment is questionable and
inconsistent with later methods by Scott and coworkers for calculating groundwater use. Scott et
al. (2006b, 2008a, 2014) assumed that effective precipitation was 100% in their studies, which
would be approximately 6" greater in this area. Removing 11" (279 mm) of precipitation from
ADWRs values would give mesquite groundwater use of 23.81" (65 mm) and 13.12" (333 mm),
respectively. Subtracting this revised precipitation value from the adjusted ADWR values gives
groundwater use of 464 mm 236 mm (18.28") and (9.29"), respectively. These values are similar
to those determined by Scott et al (2006b) for the years 20032005 for the Charleston and Lewis
Springs mesquite sites, discussed in the New Studies section. Scotts groundwater value for
dense mesquite (woodland) was 490 mm (19.28"), and his value for medium-dense mesquite
(shrubland) was 381 mm (15.00"). Groundwater use by mesquite shrubland at a prior Lewis
Springs site with 32% canopy coverage was 157 mm (6.18") (Scott et al., 2006b).

Santa Cruz River, Nogales, Arizona, 1995

Unland et al. (1998) attempted to determine total annual evapotranspiration values for all classes
of vegetation, both agricultural and natural, along a one-mile-long losing stretch of the Santa
Cruz River north of Nogales, Arizona. This study was undertaken in January 1995 using a
micrometeorological station and the energy balanceBowen ratio method. One of the five
difference classes of vegetation was primarily dense mesquite bosque, in which one of two
meteorological stations was placed. While the paper did not directly give the evapotranspiration
rate for mesquite (tall riparian vegetation), it did give the total annual volume of water
calculated to have been used, 2.77 106 m3, and it gave the total acreage of mesquite, 326.69
hectares (807 acres). Dividing water volume by this acreage gives an annual ET of 848 mm
(33.39").

While only 46% of the Bowen ratio measurement data acquired for the mesquite bosque was
considered valid, Unland and coworkers felt that in many cases it was possible to substitute a
reliable evaporation measurement for unusable values using the aerodynamic method. The study
gives the precipitation for the year as 714 mm (28.11"), with 11.2 coming in the month of
August. However, this is 280 mm (11") more than the average annual rainfall for Nogales. A
check of the precipitation records for the Nogales 6 N weather station, located at the Nogales
wastewater treatment plant 4.8 km (3.0 mi) southeast of the study site, shows that the area
received 365 mm (14.36") of rain in 1995. Tucson 70 km to the north received somewhat less
250 mm (10"), and Patagonia 24 km (15 mi) to the east received 335 mm (13.2"). The Nogales 6
N weather station did receive 712 mm (28.04") of rainfall in 1993, two years prior to the study.
Thus the value given in the paper is erroneous.

In an arid environment most precipitation is returned to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration

irrespective of the vegetation type and density. Scott et al. (2006b, 2008b) used this relationship
to determine approximate mesquite groundwater use by subtracting precipitation from
evapotranspiration. Doing so in this case would give a groundwater use by the Nogales bosque
of 483 mm (19.01"). This compares with 490 mm (19.28") determined by Scott et al. (2006b)
for the Charleston mesquite woodland site on the San Pedro River. The canopy coverage of the
two areas is approximately the same, 74% vs ~80% (estimated by Scott et al., 2000). The
Nogales site received 128 mm (5.03") more rainfall than the Charleston site during the year of

13
measurement. This difference in precipitation reconciles the difference in evapotranspiration
rates for the two sites, 848 mm (33.39") vs. 727 mm (28.62 mm), respectively.

San Pedro River, Lewis Springs (Sierra Vista), Arizona, 1997

The next significant study of mesquite water use was undertaken by Scott and colleagues at the
Lewis Springs site east of Sierra Vista in 1997 (Scott et al., 1998; Scott et al., 2000; Goodrich et
al., 2000) using the energy balanceBowen ratio method, which Unland and colleagues used.
The depth to groundwater at this site was 10 m (32 ft) with a canopy coverage of 32% (revised
downward from an initial assessment of 50%). Three separate total ET measurements are given
for mesquite for the Lewis Springs site:

(1) 402 mm (15.83"), April 11, 1997October 21, 1997 (Goodrich et al., 2000)
(2) 375 mm (14.76"), March 1997March 1998 (Scott et al., 2000)
(3) 330 mm (13.00"), May 1, 1997 November 27, 1997 (Scott et al., 2006b)

The disparity with the value in case (1) is apparently related to its being the initial estimate,
which was later refined downward somewhat. For case (2), annual precipitation was 247 mm
(9.72). When this is removed from ET, it gives an annual groundwater use of 128 mm (5.04).
For case (3), growing-season precipitation minus the change in soil moisture was 157 mm
(6.18"). When this is removed from ET, it gives a seasonal groundwater use of 173 mm (6.82").
For 100% foliage coverage, this value would scale up to 491 mm (19.33) of groundwater use,
closer to results of later studies.

This study location initially suggested that groundwater use by riparian mesquite shrubland and
sacaton grassland was minimal or nonexistent, leading Scott et al. (1998) to conclude, This
leads us to wonder if the dominant, and perhaps only significant, groundwater consumptive use
in the Upper San Pedro Basin is determined solely by the cottonwood/willow gallery that stands
adjacent to the river. This notion was reinforced because the 1997 annual precipitation of
nearby Tombstone was 343 mm (13.50") (Scott et al., 2000). The intensive data gathering from
2001 to 2005 at new and better-located sites with eddy covariance instrumentation showed these
early results to be low and confirmed that both riparian mesquite and sacaton readily access
groundwater.

New Studies

In 2001 a study site was added at Charleston (mesquite riparian woodland), and in 2003 new
sites with eddy covariance instrumentation were established at Lewis Springs (mesquite riparian
shrubland and sacaton grassland) on the east side of the river. Russell Scott of the ARS in
Tucson has been the lead scientist on most of this work. Important papers published related to
these studies include Scott et al. (2003), Scott et al. (2004a,b), Leenhouts (2006), Leenhouts et al.
(2006), Scott et al. (2006a,b), Scott et al. (2008b), Williams and Scott (2009), and Scott et al.
(2014). Several other papers have also used these data for other analyses.
The eddy covariance method measures and calculates turbulent fluxes or movements of gases
within the atmospheric boundary layer surrounding vegetation and is used to estimate heat, water
and CO2 exchange. The instrumentation measures these variables at frequent intervals and is
considered the most effective way of determining evapotranspiration without directly measuring

14
changes in soil moisture. It is often use in conjunction with the Bowen ratio method, which is
used to check and adjust calculated evapotranspiration values. The Bowen ratio method
measures latent and sensible heat transfer to determine evapotranspiration.

The three established sites (Figure 3) have the characteristics given below, taken from Scott et al.
(2006a) and Scott et al. (2014). Figure 4 shows the relationship of the three community types
with respect to the floodplain and channel. What Scott calls shrubland is actually immature
riparian woodland and is distinct from upland shrubland, what many consider the term to mean.
Riparian woodland and shrubland grade into one another, and we would tend to group them
together. Both occur on the first terrace above the floodplain (Figure 4). Upland shrubland is
entirely precipitation dependent and uses a fraction of the water that riparian mesquite does.

Charleston Mesquite Woodland Site: Tree canopy cover is 70%74%; mean canopy height is
7 m (23.0 ft); depth to groundwater is 10 m (32.8 ft).
Lewis Springs Mesquite Shrubland Site: Mesquite cover is 51%55%; mean tree height is 3.7
m (12.0 ft); sacaton grasses and various smaller shrubs are abundant in scattered patches in tree
interspaces; mean depth to groundwater is 5.4 m (17.7 ft).
Lewis Springs Sacaton Grassland Site: Lush growth of sacaton grass, grass cover is 65%;
canopy height is 1 m (3.3 ft); mean depth to groundwater is 2.4 m (7.9 ft).

Figure 3. Location of the Charleston and Lewis Springs study sites. The evapotranspiration data cited herein are
from the eddy covariance sites denoted by the small gray circles with red outlines on the east side of the river.
Modified from Scott et al. (2006b).

15
Figure 4. Location of major vegetation communities with respect to the river channel and groundwater. Modified
from Williams and Scott (2009). In perennial reaches, groundwater would be higher, with flow in the channel.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 give aerial views of these sites and the sacaton grassland site. How much
groundwater mesquite uses depends on tree size and the percent of the ground area covered by
canopy. The difference in ET values between the Charleston and Lewis Springs mesquite sites
reflects this. To determine water use at other mesquite sites, one would need to extrapolate these
values based upon the percentage of ground cover. Water use is partitioned principally between
ground-water and precipitation. Runoff is so slight that precipitation is removed directly from
total evapotranspiration to calculate groundwater use.

Figure 5. Charleston riparian mesquite woodland.

16
Figure 6. Lewis Springs riparian mesquite shrubland.

Figure 7. Lewis Springs sacaton grassland.

17
Comparison of Mesquite and Sacaton Grassland Data Sets

Table 4 summarizes the three mesquite and sacaton data sets that Scott and colleagues have
published on. These studies present three sets of eddy covariance data that quantify San Pedro
mesquite water use for three overlapping periods: 20012003, 20032005, and 20032007. For
the first three years (20012003), measurements were made from only May 1November 27 to
cover the period when mesquite is actively transpiring and using water. Measurements for
subsequent periods were made for the entire year. No measurements were made in 2001 and
2002 for the mesquite shrubland or sacaton grassland.

Scott calculated evapotranspiration values for the first two periods, 20012003 and 20032005,
by adjusting measured heat values to fully balance heat energies (forced closure). This
increases evapotranspiration values and places an upper bound on them, making them
conservatively high (Russell Scott, personal communication, 2014). For the third period, 2003
2007, forced closure of the energy balance was not done, which results in lower ET values.
Actual ET values presumably lie between these two extremes.

Data Set 1

For comparison, early alfalfa evapotranspiration calculated for this site would be 1796 mm or
70.71" (0.95 ETo = 0.95 1890 mm; ETo value modified from Scott et al., 2006b to

Table 4. Comparison of mesquite and sacaton water-use data sets.

Evapotranspiration
Mesquite Woodland Mesquite Shrubland Sacaton Grassland
Data Set 1: Average 20012003 seasonal water use with forced closure of the energy balance1
Evapotranspiration 669 mm (26.34") 565 mm (22.24") 554 mm (21.81")
Precipitation 205 mm (8.07") 185 mm (7.28") 180 mm (7.09")
Groundwater Use 464 mm (18.27") 380 mm (14.96") 374 mm (14.7")
Data Set 2: Average 20032005 annual water use with forced closure of the energy balance2
Evapotranspiration 727 mm (28.62") 661 mm (26.02") 643 mm (25.33")
Precipitation 237 mm (9.33") 281 mm (11.06") 276 mm (10.87")
Groundwater Use 490 mm (19.28) 381 mm (15.00") 367 mm (14.45")
Data Set 3: Average 20032007 annual water use without forced closure of the energy balance3
Evapotranspiration 692 mm (27.24") 564 mm (22.20") 548 mm (21.57")
Precipitation 243 mm (9.57") 285 mm (11.21") 289 mm (11.38")
Groundwater Use 449 mm (17.68") 279 mm (10.98") 259 mm (10.20")
1
Values are from Scott et al. (2006b) for May 1November 27. Measurements for mesquite shrubland and
sacaton grassland are for 2003 only. Precipitation in this table includes slight changes in soil moisture also.
2
Values are from Scott et al. (2008b). Precipitation in this table includes slight changes in soil moisture also. The
average annual water use is slightly larger than the seasonal use given in Table 3 because it includes additional soil
moisture evaporation for the months of December through April.
3
Values are from Scott et al. (2014). Precipitation in this table does not include changes in soil moisture.

18
correspond to AZMET value1). This is an annual amount, however, that would include
December through April evapotranspiration, which precludes a direct comparison with mesquite
and sacaton evapotranspiration.

Subtracting full annual precipitation of 232 mm (2003 value taken from Scott et al., 2008a) from
total annual alfalfa ET gives 1563 mm (61.54") of alfalfa groundwater use. If one assumes that
no mesquite transpiration occurs from December through April, which Scott et al. (2006b)
document, then average annual alfalfa groundwater use would be 3.37 times that of mesquite
woodland (18.27") for this period, or conversely, groundwater use by mesquite woodland would
be 29.7% that of alfalfa. This assumes that the water which alfalfa receives perfectly balances its
evapotranspiration needs, which never occurs. The amount of irrigation water applied to alfalfa
can be up to 40% higher if flood irrigation is used (assuming a 70% efficiency). Thus this
comparison is conservative and likely to underestimate the actual ratio.

The total evapotranspiration for all sites includes that of understory vegetation, or the plants
growing beneath, around, and between individual trees. This evapotranspiration constitutes
approximately 10% of the total (Scott et al., 2006b). Groundwater use is calculated on the basis
of millimeters or inches per unit of ground area per year by a particular vegetation. Neither
mesquite nor all crops completely cover the ground surface. Groundwater usage calculated per
unit of foliage area per year for mesquite would be approximately one-third greater, or 627 mm
(24.7"), assuming a linear relationship. This would be the value for a mesquite woodland having
100% canopy coverage. Note that this value is still less than half that of alfalfa groundwater use.
One can use this value to determine the approximate groundwater usage by areas of mesquite
having different percentages of canopy cover.

Data Set 2

This data set includes complete annual evapotranspiration measurements for 20032005, adding
the months of December and January through April. While adding data from these months
increases total evapotranspiration, it has little effect on actual groundwater use because of a lack
of transpiration during this time. Any additional winter precipitation evaporates back to the
atmosphere, which results in nearly the same groundwater use. Again, these values were
computed by forcing closure of the energy balance. They are conservatively high and represent
maximum potential mesquite and sacaton water use.

These values give an average annual mesquite woodland ET of 40.5% that of alfalfa ET. Alfalfa
groundwater use would be nearly the same as for Data Set 1, 1568 mm (62.22"). Thus average
annual alfalfa groundwater use for this period would be 3.20 times that of mesquite woodland
(19.28"), or conversely, average annual groundwater use by mesquite woodland would be
31.25% that of alfalfa. The groundwater use per unit of mesquite foliage area would be 662
mm/year (26.1"), which approximates that of mesquite woodland canopy covering 100% of the
ground surface.

1
The difference in the reference evapotranspiration, ETo, calculated with the Penman-Monteith and AZMET
methods at established Arizona meteorological stations varies from 3% to 17% (Brown, 2005). This conversion
needs to be done by fully calculating the AZMET value for the San Pedro sites. Instead, it is based upon the ratio at
the Safford station and will not be accurate.

19
Average alfalfa groundwater use for this period would be 4.1 times that of mesquite shrubland
and 4.27 times that of sacaton grassland, or conversely, average annual groundwater use for
mesquite shrubland and sacaton would be 24.3% and 23.4% that of alfalfa, respectively. Again,
such comparisons assume a perfect use of irrigated water by alfalfa for evapotranspiration, which
is never achieved. The relatively small differences in evapotranspiration for the woodland,
shrubland and grassland communities are especially notable. Intuitively one would assume that
mesquite would use far more water than sacaton grass.

Data Set 3

Data set 3 gives evapotranspiration values for the San Pedro mesquite and sacaton sites for two
additional years but without adjusting measured heat values to achieve a full energy balance.
This reduces ET values for mesquite woodland by 6.6% and for mesquite shrubland and sacaton
grassland by 16.8% and 25.8%, respectively. These values should provide lower bounds on
actual water use. In this case, mesquite woodland evapotranspiration is 38.6% that of alfalfa
Average annual alfalfa groundwater use for this period would be 3.5 times that of mesquite
woodland, or conversely, average annual groundwater use by mesquite woodland would be
28.6% that of alfalfa. Groundwater use per unit of foliage area per year would be 607 mm
(23.89"). Average annual alfalfa groundwater use would be 5.6 times that of mesquite shrubland
and 6.05 times that of sacaton grassland, or conversely, mesquite shrubland and sacaton
grassland groundwater use would be 17.8% and 16.5% that of alfalfa, respectively. These values
are considered to represent the minimum potential riparian vegetation water use.

Closure of the energy balance was not forced in this case because the study focused on
quantifying net ecosystem production (NEP), ecosystem respiration (Reco), and gross ecosystem
production (GEP), which assess carbon fluxes. Researchers are uncertain whether these ET
values or those resulting from forced closure are closest to actual water use. Actual values
should lie somewhere between the two (Russell Scott, personal communication, 2014).

Other Studies

Other studies that systematically address mesquite evapotranspiration in riparian areas are scarce.
One additional significant study that attempts to do so is that done in 2010 for the Mojave River
of Southern California (Neale et al., 2011). The Mojave River flows northward from the San
Bernardino Mountains northeast of Los Angeles and empties into the Mojave Desert, passing
through the community of Apple Valley near the mountain front and Barstow to the east in the
desert (Figure 8). This study was undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with
the Mojave Water Agency and the University of Utah to assess saltcedar (tamarisk) evapotrans-
piration as part of an ongoing program to increase water availability through saltcedar removal.
This study also determined yearly evapotranspiration for riparian mesquite in the floodplain.

Analysis of ET was based on calibration of aerial multispectral and thermal infrared imagery
with ground-based measurements of crop reference ET. This procedure contrasts with that used
with San Pedro mesquite, which was based upon eddy covariance measurements acquired with
ground-based instruments. Spectral readings were transformed to evapotranspiration values for
different classes of vegetation using either the SERBAL or Two-Source model. Both modeling
packages produced similar results, and the Two-Source model was chosen for all analyses.

20
Multispectral and thermal infrared data from both 2007 and 2010 were analyzed and compared
for four contiguous areas (Figure 10; Table 5). The Alto groundwater management area is
closest to the San Bernardino Mountains, and subsequent management areas are progressively
farther away to the north and east. Groundwater levels have been increasing in the Alto and Alto
Transition subareas and declining in the Centro and Baja subareas. The lower evapotranspiration
values in the Baja management area reflect this increasing distance from the mountain front and
a falling water table.

Total yearly ET for Mojave River mesquite is significantly less than that measured for San Pedro
River mesquite (Scott et al. 2008a), averaging 461 mm vs. 727 mm and 661 mm (18.14" vs.
28.6" and 26.0"), respectively, for woodland and shrubland. However, this area also has
significantly less precipitation per year, 110 mm or 4.33". If one assumes that all precipitation
isincluded in these ET values as is done for the San Pedro sites, then subtracting it would give an
annual mesquite groundwater consumption of 350 mm, or 13.82". This is very similar to that of
Scotts San Pedro mesquite shrubland (381 mm or 15.0") and about 75% that of his mesquite
woodland (490 mm or 19.3") (Scott et al., 2008a). This compares favorably and reinforces the
conclusion that alfalfa groundwater use is at a minimum 3 to 4 times that of riparian mesquite.

Figure 8. Location of the Mojave River north of the San Bernardino Mountains, southern California, and the four
groundwater management areas analyzed for tree and plant evapotranspiration. Modified from Neale et al. (2011).

21
Table 5. Mesquite, cottonwoodwillow, and saltcedar riparian evapotranspiration along the
Mojave River, Southern California, averaged for 2007 and 2010.
Subarea Mesquite CottonwoodWillow Saltcedar
Alto 511 mm 932 mm 747 mm
(20.11") (36.69") (29.41")
Alto Transition 402 mm 835 mm 814 mm
(15.83") (32.87") (32.05")
Centro 524 mm 813 mm 782 mm
(20.63") (32.01") (30.79")
Baja 408 mm 743 mm 714 mm
(16.06") (29.25") (28.11")
Averages 461 mm 831 mm 763mm
(18.15") (32.72") (30.01")

Regarding other vegetation, evapotranspiration for cottonwood in the Alto subarea (932 mm or
36.69") is nearly the same as that for cottonwood at the Charleston San Pedro site (966 mm or
38.0"). The Alto subarea has perennial water, and thus its water regime is similar to the
Charleston site. Downstream along the Mojave River, water flow is increasingly intermittent,
and groundwater is deeper. This is reflected in lower cottonwood ET rates, as occurs along the
San Pedro River. Average saltcedar ET values (763 mm or 30.01") are very similar to those
obtained for saltcedar stands along the Rio Grande River that reservoirs do not periodically flood
(750 mm or 29.5") (Dahm, 2002). Accurately determining water usage for all vegetation
requires assessing specific site characteristics and acquiring data over a given interval of time.

Comparing Mesquite Woodland Evapotranspiration Throughout the Year

As mentioned above, of particular interest is how mesquite water use compares with that of a
standard reference crop such as alfalfa. Figure 9 is modified from Scott et al. (2008b) and shows
total evapotranspiration over the year from the three San Pedro communities (or sites) compared
with the reference crop evapotranspiration, ETo, calculated for those sites. As noted earlier,
alfalfa ET is ~95% of the reference crop ETo. This diagram thus gives an approximate
comparison of mesquite and alfalfa water use for the year. On average, Charleston mesquite
woodland (the heavy black line) reaches its maximum water usage around August 20 at 78.5%
that of reference ETo. Overall, total annual riparian mesquite evapotranspiration is approximately
40% that of alfalfa, as noted above.

This relationship is further demonstrated in Figure 10 taken from Nagler et al. (2013). This
figure continuously compares vegetation ET vs. reference ETo for five years, 20032007.
Reference ETo is again approximately equal to alfalfa ET. Nagler et al. (2013) note that
maximum ET values for these three vegetation types were about 60% of the maximum reference
value and were only 42% of total ETo on an annual basis. This again confirms that total alfalfa
ET for the year would be about 2.4 times mesquite woodland ET.

Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and alfalfa evapotranspiration peak in early June in the
hottest and driest part of the year and then decline during the monsoon season when the humidity
rises and average temperatures decline (Figure 1; Erie et al., 1982). Mesquite, however, does not
use nearly as much water during this time. Mesquite evapotranspiration peaks later in August
while monsoon moisture is greatest, limiting groundwater use. During the late summer, alfalfa

22
Figure 9. Comparison of annual evapotranspiration for mesquite and sacaton with the annual standard crop
reference evapotranspiration, ETo, which approximately equals that of alfalfa. This graph represents the approxi-
mate ratio of water use of these three communities to alfalfa water use throughout the year. Modified from Scott et
al. (2008b).

and mesquite evapotranspiration approach one another (Figure 10), a relationship that Don
Decker of the Natural Resources Conservation Service noted in the 1990s (Sayre, 2004). This set
off some farmers to aggressively removing mesquite bosque thinking that they would save vast
quantities of water.

To understand the full relationship between mesquite and alfalfa (or crop) water use, however,
one must consider the full years use and the mixture of water sources (groundwater vs.
precipitation). Viewed in this context, mesquite woodland uses much less water than alfalfa.
When precipitation is subtracted, mesquite woodland uses one-third or less the groundwater that
alfalfa does.

Reasons for Lower Mesquite Water Usage

As noted in this review, woodland mesquite uses less water annually than most crops. Several
factors account for this:

1. Mesquite dormancy. Mesquite is dormant for approximately six months of the year (Figure
11), which is perhaps the most important reason for less water use. The mesquite growing season
is approximately bounded by the date of the latest frost in the spring and the earliest frost in
autumn. In general, mesquite does not begin to leaf until early May and is not fully leafed and
transpiring until early June. Mesquite water usage begins to steeply decline in early to mid-
September and essentially ends by early November (Scott et al., 2006b). Thus mesquite is
effectively dormant for approximately six months of the year. Forage crops such as alfalfa and
bermuda or rye are actively grown for nine months or more, which increases their water usage.

23
Figure 10. Figure 2b from Nagler et al. (2013) showing the evapotranspiration for the three San Pedro River
communities (ETa) vs. the reference evapotranspiration (ETo, red line) for 20032007. Alfalfa ET would be ~95%
of ETo; thus the red line approximates alfalfa ET. CM = Charleston mesquite, LSM = Lewis Springs mesquite, and
LSS = Lewis Springs Sacaton.

Figure 11. Evapotranspiration of the three communities through the year for 2003. The mesquite growing period is
confined to the days between the last and first freezes of the year and is somewhat less than 6 months. Mesquite is
dormant for the other 6 months, a major reason for its lesser water usage. Modified from Scott (n.d.); derived from
Scott et al. (2006b).

24
2. Hydraulic redistribution and storage of precipitation. During the summer monsoon
season from July through September, mesquite roots pump surface precipitation downward at
night for storage in deeper soil layers (Hultine et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2008a; Figure 12). The
tree then uses this stored water later during drier times, reducing groundwater consumption.
Downward water transfer in a riparian mesquite woodland can reach 7 liters/night (~2 gallons)
per tree. This transfer is closely tied to precipitation events. Lateral roots near the surface gather
the water and move it toward the trunk, and then the tap root moves the water downward.
Summer nocturnal reverse flow in this manner can reach 25%-50% of daily upward transpiration
flow (Hultine et al., 2004).

water storage

Figure 12. A. Downward transfer (hydraulic redistribution) of precipitation via the mesquite tap root at night
during the summer monsoon season. Negative values indicate water flow away or downward from the base of the
tree, while positive values denote water transfer toward the base of the tree. Lateral roots gather the water, and the
tap root moves it to deeper soil layers. Downward transfer is closely tied to precipitation events, noted in B. This
transfer can reach 7 liters/night (~2 gallons/night). Originally published in Hultine et al. (2004) and later referenced
in Scott et al. (2006b), the source of this figure. This is from the Charleston mesquite woodland site on the San
Pedro River.

Mesquite also collects and pumps precipitation downward for storage during the winter
dormancy period (Hultine et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2008a; Figure 13). This downward transfer is
nearly continuous through the end of April, as long as precipitation has occurred. During the
start of the growing season, essentially all water used is from this winter storage via the tap root.
For mesquite trees in upland grasslands, the amount of water stored in this way can equal the
yearly amount of water used. Desert upland mesquite typically takes up and transpires about
one-third of the total yearly precipitation (Ansley et al., 2005; Scott et al., 2008a). While this

25
 water storage

Figure 13. Hydraulic redistribution (downward transfer) of winter precipitation by mesquite during the dormant
winter and early spring months. As in the previous diagram, negative values indicate water flow away, or
downward, from the base of the tree, while positive values denote water transfer toward the base of the tree.
Downward transfer and storage approaches 12 liters (3 gallons) per day. Water transfer is predominantly downward
through mid to late April. Figure is from Scott (n.d.), derived from Scott et al. (2008a), and is from mesquite
savanna in the Santa Rita Experimental Range south of Tucson, Arizona.

water storage does not reduce overall evapotranspiration for the year, it does diminish
groundwater use in riparian areas by utilizing surface water more efficiently.

3. Limited canopy ground coverage. The canopy in a mesquite woodland covers the full
ground surface only in special situations where the depth to groundwater is optimum for growth.
The majority of the time canopy coverage is significantly less than 100%. This is in contrast to
100% coverage by forage crops such as alfalfa and bermuda grass. In Scotts studies, dense
mesquite woodland canopy covered 74% of the ground surface, and sparser mesquite shrubland
canopy covered 55%. The initial mesquite shrubland canopy that he studied at Lewis Springs
covered only 32% of the ground surface (Scott et al., 2006b). This reduced foliage results in less
water usage per unit area by mesquite than crops.

4. Arid-adapted leaf structure and physiology. While mesquite does transpire at significantly
higher rates than other desert vegetation, its leaves and physiology are adapted to an arid
environment, and the plant naturally adjusts to a wide range of moisture conditions. Crops such
as alfalfa and pastsure grass are not so adapted. Mesquite thus needs less water physically than
forage crops to prosper. During hot and dry weather or when ground water is less accessible,
mesquite adjusts the stomatal openings of its leaves to reduce moisture loss, folds its leaves to
reduce leaf surface area, and prunes itself of excess leaves if necessary. Its leaves are also
covered with a waxy coating, and leaf area is smaller than more broadleafed plants (Nelle, 2014).

26
Mesquite can survive under very low soil water conditions by reducing leaf area, increasing leaf
cuticle thickness, and almost completely ceasing to grow. It also uses leaf orientation, wax
accumulation, and reduction in canopy development to avoid drought (Wan and Sosebee, 1991).
Because of these adaptations, mesquite naturally conserves water when necessary and can endure
low water availability.

DISCUSSION

Riparian and upland mesquite acquire and use water differently and require different
management approaches. Recent work by Scott (2014) shows that evapotranspiration by upland
mesquite in Arizona does not differ from associated grassland and that removing it will not
increase water yields for offsite use. Thus removing mesquite that does not depend upon
groundwater is more a matter of preference for different vegetation than increasing water
availability. Riparian mesquite on the other hand does access groundwater, and water use may
be of concern.

Without measuring mesquite evapotranspiration at a specific location over the growing season, it
is difficult to determine whether newly established mesquite is accessing groundwater, as
mesquite in both upland (solely precipitation dependent) and riparian (precipitation and
groundwater dependent) environments can be similar in size, at least in the first several years of
growth. If mesquite is accessing groundwater, ET values will be high prior to the
commencement of monsoon precipitation. Whether or not mesquite will eventually access
groundwater on abandoned agricultural fields or other areas depends on depth to groundwater.

Optimal riparian mesquite development occurs where groundwater is 56 m (16.419.7 ft) or less
below the surface (Stromberg et al., 1992; Stromberg et al., 1993). Data show that as depth to
groundwater increases from 6 to 15 m (20 to 50 ft), trees are increasingly shorter, have smaller
crowns, and depend more on precipitation (Stromberg et al., 1992; Stromberg, 1993; Snyder and
Williams, 2000). Trees established at shallow groundwater levels become increasingly stressed as
groundwater levels fall. When groundwater depths reaches 15 m (50 ft) or greater, these trees
either perish or die back severely, becoming dependent solely on precipitation (Stromberg, 1993).
Thus the maximum depth to groundwater that new mesquite might access must be less than 15 m
(~50 ft).

No one has determined what the maximum water depth that a new tree can effectively access to
support its growth, only that the depth will be less than 15 m (50 ft). When a mesquite seed
germinates, the resulting tree must depend entirely on precipitation until it reaches a certain age
and size. Some abandoned agricultural fields may now be too far above the water table for this
mesquite to access groundwater, and any reestablished mesquite will thus remain smaller, be
more dispersed and depend entirely upon precipitation. Fields underlain by shallower
groundwater may facilitate mesquite groundwater use, allowing a true woodland to eventually
develop. Determining whether mesquite is capable of accessing groundwater beneath these areas
and confirming whether it eventually does will be important to long-term management plans if
water use is of concern.

27
Addressing this situation is a matter of cultural values. In some circumstances we may want to
encourage other vegetation such as grass to revegetate disturbed areas or to replace mesquite.
Conversely, riparian mesquite per se is renown for its high biological value, and we may wish to
encourage its growth in certain areas for conservation purposes. Whether mesquite is removed
from the landscape or discouraged from recolonizing an area, some form of vegetation must
replace it. Removing it merely for the sake of removing it can increase erosion and reduce plant
productivity and associated habitat, which may be difficult to reestablish. As good stewards of
the land we must also choose what to replace it with.

If water use is of concern when revegetating an area, comparing and quantifying how much
water different types of vegetation use will be important. Given the cost, time and effort
required to establish alternative vegetation and the fact that it uses water also, allowing mesquite
to naturally establish itself may at times be a more feasible both economically and
environmentally. Mesquites potential for higher water use may be acceptable given these
tradeoffs, and this may be the most practical way of protecting the lands surface.

CONCLUSIONS

While researchers in the past have attempted to measure water use by both upland and riparian
mesquite, this review focuses solely on water use by riparian mesquite because of its greater
hydrologic impact. All direct field measurements of riparian mesquite water use have been made
either along the Gila or San Pedro Rivers in Arizona. Upland mesquite depends entirely on
precipitation, which limits its growth and water use, whereas riparian mesquite accesses and uses
groundwater in addition to precipitation if the water table is sufficiently shallow. Evapotranspir-
ation by riparian mesquite may be up to three times as great as upland shrubland mesquite,
whereas transpiration or actual water use by riparian mesquite may be up to seven times as great.

Past measurements of riparian mesquite water use have been very sparse and difficult to obtain.
The primary difficulty for researchers has been devising a sound and reliable method to measure
it. Early methods to measure evapotranspiration of native vegetation used three strategies: (1)
measuring water used by plants grown in tanks (lysimeters), (2) measuring the water balance in
the aquifer over the period of plant water use, and (3) measuring daily fluctuations in water
levels in wells (transpiration well method) within vegetation stands. Only the second and third
methods has been used with riparian mesquite and then only in two instances. The difficulty in
devising an accurate computational model for these methods introduces large uncertainties into
the results and overestimates water use.

In the 1990s and 2000s these methods gave way to instrumented measurements of environmental
factors within tree stands, first by the Bowen-energy ratio method and subsequently by the eddy
covariance method. Only two attempts have been made to use the Bowen-energy ratio method
with riparian mesquite. Both gave results that were questionable because of either
instrumentation unreliability (Unland et al., 1998) or because equipment was not located within
a representative mesquite stand (Scott et al., 2000). The eddy covariance method provided the
measurements summarized in this review and is considered more reliable.

In addition to these methods, researchers have also attempted to quantify riparian vegetation
water use by remote sensing methods. Spectral measurements of vegetation must be calibrated

28
with ground measurements of water use for the same vegetation, usually by the eddy covariance
method. This method results in significant uncertainty in the results and has been used with
mesquite in just a single instance for the Mohave River in southern California.

Of all the methods used, the eddy covariance method is the most reliable. Scott and colleagues
have acquired up to nine years of water-use data for riparian mesquite using this method within
the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, and these data are the primary source of the
conclusions presented herein. This method in itself results in uncertain results because
researchers do not know whether forcing closure of the energy-balance equation produces more
or less accurate values. Forcing closure maximizes water-use and has been more generally used
for formal presentations of water use because it produces conservatively high values.

Measurements of crop water use fall into two categories, (1) actual evapotranspiration
(consumptive use) by the crop, and (2) the amount of water applied to achieve the necessary
evapotranspiration for good yields. Applied water can be up to 50% or more greater than actual
consumptive use and is an important consideration when comparing water use with natural
vegetation. In contrast to crops, mesquite uses only the water that is naturally available and
adjusts its growth to it.

Crop evapotranspiration is typically carefully determined by measuring water use by plants

grown in tanks (lysimeters) or under carefully monitored and controlled field conditions. The
goal in applying water and measuring its use in these procedures is to determine the amount
required to maximize yield without overwatering. Such exact applications of water are much
more difficult to achieve under actual growing conditions, and farmers either under- or overwater
their crops to some degree. A primary criticism of the tank or lysimeter method is that it
overestimates evapotranspiration somewhat. In some instances, agricultural scientists are now
using the eddy covariance method to determine crop evapotranspiration.

The primary comparison between mesquite water use and crop water use in this report is for
evapotranspiration or consumptive water use. By this comparison, mature mesquite woodland
uses approximately 40% of the water used by a reference crop such as alfalfa. A more
appropriate comparison, arguably, is the amount of groundwater or external water that mesquite
and crops use. When this is considered, mesquite water use declines by approximately the
amount of precipitation a woodland receives, whereas crop water in general increases because of
irrigation inefficiencies.

In terms of groundwater use and irrigation efficiency, mature riparian mesquite uses 25%-30% of
the water that a crop such as alfalfa does. No crop grown in southern Arizona uses less water
than a mature mesquite woodland. Even lower-evapotranspiration crops such as wheat and
barley use 50% or more water by this measure. While the evapotranspiration of vegetable crops
is generally less than that of riparian mesquite, when applied or groundwater usage is considered,
all vegetable crops use significantly more water. In addition, mesquite water use diminishes with
diminishing canopy coverage of the ground and is not a constant, set value.

Thus this review shows that riparian mesquite does not use vastly more water than cultivated
crops as some have come to believe. To the contrary, in essentially all cases mesquite uses less

29
even when fully developed into a mature woodland. The most comparable crop comparison is
with grains, whose evapotranspiration is similar or slightly less. Removing mesquite from
riparian areas and replacing it with irrigated crops or pasture grass will thus not reduce water loss
or improve stream-flow conditions. In fact, doing so may exacerbate stream-flow conditions
given the greater water requirements of most crops, especially alfalfa or pasture grass.

Much of the irrigated agricultural land along riparian areas in arid regions is used to grow forage
for livestock. While mesquite colonization of abandoned fields used for this purpose may
gradually result in increased groundwater use if the water table is sufficiently shallow, that use
will not exceed prior use unless fields were kept fallow for up to two-thirds or more of the time.
Forage crops such as bermuda and rye grass or alfalfa would have to be grown less than once
every two to three years to use less groundwater. Even if mesquite became fully reestablished as
a mature woodland, its water use would be less than most agricultural use.

Acknowledgments. I thank Russell Scott of the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural

Research Service in Tucson, Arizona for providing data and references on mesquite water use as
well as comments on this review. Michael Ottman and Paul Brown of the University of
Arizonas Cooperative Extension Service provided background on alfalfa and pasture grass
water use, respectively. Doug Hunsaker of the Agricultural Research Service in Phoenix,
Arizona, provided water use data for cotton and wheat. I also thank Phillip Hedrick of Arizona
State Universitys School of Life Sciences and Scott Wilbor, a recent graduate from the
University of Arizonas School of Natural Resources and the Environment, for their reviews and
comments.

About the author: Norm Mick Meader is Chair of the Conservation Committee of the
Cascabel Conservation Association and a Board Member of the Lower San Pedro Watershed
Alliance. He has a B.A. and M.S. in geology and is a retired staff member of the Department of
Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson. You may reach him at 3443 E. Lee Street, Tucson,
AZ 85716, phone 520-323-0092, email nmeader@cox.net.

30
 ALFALFA AND CROP-RELATED REFERENCES

ADWR, 1999. Third Management Plan. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Available from http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/WaterManagement/AMAs/
ThirdManagementPlan3.htm. Accessed June 14, 2014.

Blake, C., 2009. Drip irrigation increasing alfalfa yields, Western Farm Press, May 18, 2009.
Available from http://westernfarmpress.com/alfalfa/drip-irrigation-increasing-alfalfa-yields.
Accessed June 16, 2014.

Brown, P.W., 2001. Turfgrass consumptive use values for the Tucson area. Turf Irrigation
Management Series IV, Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET), University of Arizona, 5
pp. Available from http://www.ag.arizona.edu/azmet/cutuc.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2014.

Brown, P.W., 2005. Standardized reference evapotranspiration, A new procedure for estimating
reference evapotranspiration in Arizona, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Publication AZ1324. 5 pp. Available from http://www.cals.arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1324.pdf.
Accessed June 16, 2014.

Brown, P.W., 2008. Flood vs. pivot irrigation for forage crops: What are the advantages and
disadvantages? In: Proceedings, 2008 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Western Seed
Conference, San Diego, Calif., December 2-4, 2008. Available from http://www/alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/
+symposium/proceedings/2008/08-141.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2014.

Brown, P.W., and Kopec, D., 2000 (revised 2014). Converting reference evapotranspiration into turf
water use, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Publication AZ1195, 5. pp. Available from
http://www.cals.arizona.edu/water/az1195.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2014.

Brown, P.W., Mancion, C.F., Young, M.H., Thompson, T.L., Wierenga, P.J.,and Kopec, D.M., 2001.
Perman Monteith crop coefficients for use with desert turf systems. Crop Science 41, 11971206.
Available from http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_pdf/FAOPET.pdf. Accessed
September 9, 2014.

Doorenbos, J., W.O. Pruitt. 1977. Guidelines to predicting crop water requirements. Irrigation
and Drainage Paper (FAO), No. 24. United Nations, Rome, Italy. (Referenced in Hansen et al.,
2008 and 2011).

Desert Sun Marketing Company, 2014. Giant bermuda grass. Information sheet available from
http://www.desertsunmarketing.com/pdfs/Grasses_and_Ground_Covers/Bermuda/Giant%20Bermuda/
6-Bermuda,%20Giant.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2014.

Erie, L.J., French, O.F., Bucks, D.A., and Harris, K., 1982. Consumptive use of water by major crops
in the Southwestern United States. USDA-ARS Conservation Research Report Number 29, 42 pp.
Available from http://cals.arizona.edu/crop/irrigation/consumuse/conusefinal.pdf. Accessed June 30,
2014.

31
Hansen, B., n.d. Crop coefficients (PowerPoint presentation, slide 27). Available from
http://www.ucanr.org/sites/Irrigation_and_Soils_/files/93370.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2014.

Hanson, B., K. Bali, S. Orloff, B. Sanden, and D. Putnam, 2008, How much water does alfalfa really
need?, in Proceedings, 2008 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Western Seed Conference,
San Diego, Calif., December 2-4, 2008. Available from http://www/alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/
+symposium/proceedings/2008/08-265.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2014.

Hanson, B., Orloff, S., Bali, K., Sanden, B., and Putnam, D., 2011. Evapotranspiration of fully-
irrigated alfalfa in commercial fields. In: 2011 Conference Proceedings, American Society of
Agronomy, California Chapter, February 1 & 2, 2011, Fresno, Calif., pp. 77-82. Available from
http://www.calasa.ucdavis.edu/files/73479.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2014.

Hunsaker, D.J., Pinter, .J., and Cai, H., 2002. Alfalfa basal crop coefficients for FAO-56 procedures
in the desert regions of the southwestern U.S. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, 45(6), 1799-1815.

Hunsaker, D.J., Barnes, E.M., Clarke, T.R., Fitzgerald, G.J., Pinter P.J., Jr., 2005. Cotton irrigation
scheduling using remotely sensed and FAO-56 basal crop coefficients. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 48(4), 13951407.

Hunsaker, D.J., Pinter, P.J., and Kimball, B.A., 2005b. Wheat basal crop coefficients determined by
normalized difference vegetation index. Irrigation Science 24, 114.

Husman, S., and Ottman, M., 2004. Irrigation of small grains in Arizona. University of Arizona
Cooperative Extension Publication AZ1345, 6 pp. Available from http://extension.arizona.edu/pubs/
az1345.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2014.

Martin, E.C., 2011. Determining the amount of irrigation water applied to a field, Arizona Water
Series No. 29. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Publication AZ1157, 3 pp.
Available from http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1157.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2014.

Martin, E.C., S. W. Winans, and D. Esquerra, 1994. Determination of heat unit based crop
coefficient for alfalfa in western Arizona. Available from http://arizona.openrepository.com/
arizona/bitstream/10150/201439/1/370102-013-018.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2014.

Martin, N., D. Putnam, G. Shewmaker and D. Undersander, 2004. Western alfalfa & corn silage
production: Regional perspective. Available from http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/
Place/36553000/px-based_v3.2/presentations/pdf/2004/wde2004/wde2004_martin-etal.pdf.
Accessed June 16, 2014.

Moore, M.R., Crosswhite, W.M., and Hosteller, J.E. 1990. Agricultural water use in the United
States, 19501985. In: Carr, J.E.; Chase, E.B.; Paulson, R.W. and Moody, D.W. (Eds.),
National Water Summary 1987 Water Supply and Use: Hydrologic Perspectives on Water
Issues. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2350, pp. 93108. Available from
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2350/report.pdf. Accessed July 10. 2014.

32
Ottman, M., 2010. Suboptimal irrigation strategies for alfalfa in the Lower Colorado Region,
2009. 2010 Forage & Grain Report, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of
Arizona, 8 pp. Available from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/203769.
Accessed July 27, 2014.

Putnam, D., and M. Ottman, 2002. Emerging issues for alfalfa in California and Arizona.
Available from http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/proceedings/2002/02-013.pdf. Accessed
June 15, 2016.

Rogers Heaven Sent Ranch, n.d. Certified organic alfalfa (website), http://rogershsr.com/
certified-organic-alfalfa. Accessed June 15, 2014.

Salinity Management, 2007. Salinity Management Guide, Estimate the water needs of landscape
plants (website), http://www.salinitymanagement.org/Salinity%20Management%20Guide/ew/
ew_2.html. Accessed July 1, 2014.

Skaggs, R., Samani Z., Bawazir A.S., and Bleiweiss M., 2008. Yield response to water in
irrigated New Mexico pecan production: Measurements & policy implications. In: Gooch, R.S.,
and Anderson, S.S., (Eds.), Urbanization of irrigated land and water transfers, Proceedings of
the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage Water Management Conference, Scottsdale,
Arizona, May 28-31, 2008, pp. 369-480. Available from http://digitool.library.colostate
.edu/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=117070. Accessed September 9, 2014.

Snyder, R. L., and Bali, K. M., 2008. Irrigation scheduling of alfalfa using evapotranspiration, In:
Proceedings, 2008 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and Western Seed Conference, San
Diego, Calif, December, 2-4, 2008. Available from http://www/alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/
proceedings/2008/08-95.pdf. Accessed June 16, 2014.

Teegerstrom, T., and Clark, L., 1999. Arizona Field Crop Budgets, 19992000. University of
Arizona Cooperative Extension Bulletins #AZ1114AZ1122. Values for all counties and crops
are available at https://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/fieldcropbudgets.html in separate documents.
Accessed November 26, 2014.

UA Cooperative Extension, n.d. Alfalfa FAQs, Arizona forage & grain crops information
(website), University of Arizona, http://cals.arizona.edu/forageandgrain/alfalfa-faqs. Accessed
June 14, 2014.

UA Cooperative Extension, 2001. Alfalfa report, Yuma County, Arizona, December 31,
2001(website), University of Arizona, https://cals.arizona.edu/crops/counties/yuma/
alfalfareports/2001/alfalfarpt123101.html. Accessed June 15, 2014.

Watson, J., and Sheedy, M, 1992. Crop water use estimates, 3 pp. Available at
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/17040181/estimating-cotton-evapotranspiration-crop-
coefficients-multispectral-vegetation-index. Accessed June 30, 2014.

33
Young, D., Frost, B., and Schneider, M., 1994. Establishing irrigated pasture at 4,000- to 6,000-
foot elevations in Arizona. University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Publication 194028, 6
pp. Available from http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/194028.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2014.

MESQUITE AND RIPARIAN REFERENCES

ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources), 1991. Hydrographic Survey Report for the San
Pedro River Watershed. General Assessment, Vol. 1. Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Filed with the Court, November 20, 1991, 604 pp.

Ansley, R.J., 2005. How much of a water thief is mesquite? The Cattleman 92(1), 20-32. June
2005 issue.

Dahm, C.N., Cleverly, J.R., Allred Coonrod, J.E., Thibault, J.R., McDonnell, D.E., and Gilroy,
D.J., 2002. Evapotranspiration at the land/water interface in a semi-arid drainage basin.
Freshwater Biology 47, 831-843.

Gatewood, J.S., Robinson, T.W., Colby, B.R., Hem, J.D., and Halpenny, L.C., 1950. Use of water
by bottom-land vegetation in the lower Safford Valley, Arizona. United States Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1103, 210 pp. Available from http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1103/report.pdf.
Accessed June 19, 2014.

Gazal, R.M., Scott, R.O., Goodrich, D.C., and Williams, D.G., 2006. Controls on transpiration in a
semiarid riparian cottonwood forest. Agricultural Forest Meteorology 137, 5667.

Goodrich, D.C., Scott, R., Qi, J. et al., 2000. Seasonal estimates of riparian evapotranspiration
using remote and in situ measurements. Agricultural Forest Meteorology 105, 281309.

Johnson, A.I., 1967. Specific Yield Compilation of Specific Yields for Various Materials,
Hydrologic Properties of Earth Materials, Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1662-D, 74 pp.

Leenhouts, J.M., 2006. Hydrologic requirements of and evapotranspiration by riparian

vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2006-3027, 3
pp. Available from http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3027/. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Leenhouts, J.M., Stromberg, J.C., Scott, R.L. (Eds.), 2006. Hydrologic Requirements of and
Consumptive Ground-Water Use by Riparian Vegetation Along the San Pedro River, Arizona,
U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5163, pp. 107152. Available
from http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5163. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Nagler, P.L., Glenn, E.P., Nguyen, U., Scott, R.L., and Doody, T., 2013. Estimating riparian and
agricultural actual evapotranspiration by reference evapotranspiration and MODIS enhanced
vegetation index. Remote Sensing 5, 3849-3871. doi:10.3390/rs5083849.

Neale, C.M.U., Taghvaeian, S., Geli, H., et al., 2011. Evapotranspiration water use analysis of
saltcedar and other vegetation in the Mojave River floodplain, 2007 and 2010, Mojave Water

34
Agency Water Supply Management Study Phase 1 Report. Prepared by the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, and the Bureau of Reclamation, 99 pp.
Available from http://www.usbr.gov/lc/socal/reports/MWAStudy/Phase1.pdf. Accessed July 3,
2014.

Nelle, S., 2014. Misunderstood mesquite. San Angelo Standard Times, Thursday, April 24,
2014. Website: http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2014/apr/24/misunderstood-mesquite/.
Accessed July 9, 2014.

Qashu, H.K., 1966. Estimation of the elements of the water balance of an ephemeral stream
channel with riparian vegetation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, 141 pp.

Qashu, H.K., and Evans, D.D., 1967. Water disposition in a stream channel with riparian
vegetation. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 31(2), 263-269.

Sayre, N.F., 2011. A history of land use and natural resources in the middle San Pedro River
Valley, Arizona. Journal of the Southwest 53(1), 87-137. Spring 2011. doi: 10.1353/
jsw.2011.0002

Scott, R.L., Shuttleworth, W.J., and Goodrich, D.C., 1998. Water use of two dominant riparian
vegetation communities in southeastern Arizona. Summary of poster presented at the American
Meteorological Society, Special Symposium on Hydrology, Phoenix, Arizona, 11-16 January 1998,
Session 1: Integrated Observations of Semi-Arid Land-Surface-Atmosphere Interactions, HYDRO
FA P2.7. Available at http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/salsa/archive/publications/ams_preprints/
scott.html. Accessed September 26, 2014.

Scott, R.L., n.d. (no date). Riparian water use (PowerPoint presentation). Presented to the
Community Watershed Alliance, Benson, Arizona. Available from http://cwatershedalliance.com/
TAC_pdf/Scott_RiparianWaterUse.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Scott, R.L., Shuttleworth, W.J., Goodrich, D.C., and Maddock III, T., 2000. The water use of
two dominant vegetation communities in a semiarid riparian ecosystem. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 105, 241256.

Scott, R.L., Watts, C., Garatuza, J., Edwards, E., Goodrich, D., Williams, D., and Shuttleworth,
W.J., 2003. The understory and overstory partitioning of energy and water fluxes in an open
canopy, semiarid woodland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 114, 127139.

Scott, R.L., Edwards, E.A., Shuttleworth, W.J., Huxman, T.E., Watts, C., and Goodrich, D.C.,
2004a. Interannual and seasonal variation in fluxes of water and carbon dioxide from a riparian
woodland ecosystem. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 122, 6584.

Scott R.L., Goodrich, D.C., Levick, L, McGuire, R., Cable ,W.L., Williams, D.G., Gazal, R.,
Yepez, E., Ellsworth, P.Z., and Huxman, T., 2004b. San Pedro Riparian National Conservation
Area (SPRNCA) water needs study: A research effort funded by the Upper San Pedro

35
Partnership, 79 pp. Available from http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/UPPER-SAN-PEDRO-
1.PDF. Accessed June 18, 2014.

Scott, R.L., Huxman, T.E., Williams, D.G., Goodrich, D.C., 2006a. Ecohydrological impacts of
woody plant encroachment: Seasonal patterns of water and carbon dioxide exchange within a
semiarid riparian environment. Global Change Biology 12, 311324.

Scott, R.L., Williams, D.G., Goodrich, D.C., Cable, W.L., Levick, L.R., McGuire, R., Gazal,
R.M., Yepez, E.A., Ellsworth, P., Huxman, T.E., 2006b. Determining the riparian groundwater
use within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and the Sierra Vista
Subwatershed, Arizona (Chapter D). In: Leenhouts, J.M., Stromberg, J.C., Scott, R.L. (Eds.),
Hydrologic Requirements of and Consumptive Ground-Water Use by Riparian Vegetation Along
the San Pedro River, Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-
5163, pp. 107152. Available from http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5163. Accessed June 18,
2014.

Scott, R.L., Cable, W.L., and Hultine, K.R., 2008a. The ecohydrologic significance of hydraulic
redistribution in a semiarid savanna. Water Resources Research 44, 12 pp. W02440,
doi:10.1029/2007WR006149.

Scott, R.L., Cable, W.L., Huxman, T.E., Nagler, P.L., Hernandez, M., and Goodrich, D.C.,
2008b. Multiyear riparian evapotranspiration and groundwater use for a semiarid watershed.
Journal of Arid Environments 72, 1232-1246.

Scott, R.L., 2014. Hydrologic aspects of mesquite encroachment. Presentation to Science on the
Sonita Plain Symposium 2014, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Elgin, Arizona, June 8, 2014.
Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jubTGn0vAzQ. Accessed July 10, 2014.

Scott, R.L., Huxman, T.E., Barron-Gafford, G.A., Jenerette, G.D., Young, J.M., and
Hamerlynck, E.P., 2014. When vegetation change alters ecosystem water availability. Global
Change Biology 20, 21982210.

Stromberg, J.C., Tress, J.A., Wilkins, and S.D., Clark, S.D., 1992. Response of velvet mesquite
to ground water decline. Journal of Arid Environments 23, 4558.

Stromberg, J.C., 1993. Riparian mesquite forests: A review of their ecology, threats, and
recovery potential. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 27(1), 111-124.

Stromberg, J.C., Wilkins, S.D., and Tress, J.A., 1993. Vegetation hydrology models:
Implications for management of Prosopis velutina (velvet mesquite) riparian ecosystems.
Ecological Applications 3, 307314.

Tromble, J.M., 1972. Use of water by a riparian mesquite community. In: Proceedings of the
National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition. American Water Resources Association and
Colorado State University, pp. 267270.

36
Unland, H.E., Arain, A.M., Harlow, C., Houser, P.R., Garatuza-Payan, J., Scott, P., Sen, O.L.
and Shuttleworth, W.J., 1998. Evaporation from a riparian system in a semi-arid environment.
Hydrological Processes 12, 527542.

Wan, C., and Sosebee, R., 1991. Water Relations and transpiration of honey mesquite on 2 sites
in west Texas. Journal of Range Management 44(2), 156-160, March 1991. Available at
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/8578/8190. Accessed July 9,
2014.

White, W.N., 1932. A method of estimating ground-water supplies based on discharge by plants
and evaporation from soilResults of investigation in Escalante, Valley, Utah. U. S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 659-A, 105 pp.

Williams, D.G., Scott, R.L., Huxman, T.E., Goodrich, D.C., Lin, G., 2006. Sensitivity of riparian
ecosystems to moisture pulses in semiarid environments. Hydrological Processes 20, 3191
3205.

Williams, D.G., and Scott R.L., 2009. Vegetation-hydrology interactions, Dynamics of riparian
plant water use. In: Stromberg, J.C. and Tellman, B. (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of the
San Pedro River, pp. 37-56, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

37
 APPENDIX A
Table 1A. Mesquite evapotranspiration and groundwater use calculated from all studies.
% Canopy
Study Method Coverage ET GWA GW100% Notes
Gatewood (1950) Transpiration 47.4% 22.54" 15.46 32.52" Determined for woodland with >60% canopy
well (573 mm) (393 mm) (826 mm) coverage; extrapolated to entire woodland
Gatewood (1950) Transpiration 47.4% 19.58" 12.50" 26.3" Using 1944 data only; partial 1943 data were
adjusted well (479 mm) (318 mm) (668 mm) discordant
Qashu (1966) Water balance 100% 51.57" Precipitation not removed;
(1310 mm)
Qashu (1966) Water balance 9.4 mm/ 2 months data only; total transpiration 328 mm
day June (12.92)
Qashu (1966) Transpiration 8.8 mm/ 2 months data only; total transpiration 312 mm
well day June (12.30)
Tromble (1972) Transpiration 80% 10.7 mm/ 13.4 mm/ 2 months data only; total transpiration 291 mm
well day June day June (11.44")
ADWR (1991) Adapted from 80% 34.81" 23.81" 29.76" Precipitation of 11" removed to calculate GWA
Gatewood (1950) (884 mm) (65 mm) and GW100%
38

ADWR (1991) Adapted from 40% 24.12" 13.12" 32.80" Precipitation of 11" removed to calculate GWA
Gatewood (1950) (613 mm) (333 mm) and GW100%
ADWR (1991) Adapted from 80% 29.28" 18.28" 22.85 Gatewood (1950) full-year 1944 data used as
adjusted Gatewood (1950) (744 mm) (464 mm) basis
ADWR (1991) Adapted from 40% 20.29" 9.29 23.23 Gatewood (1950) full-year 1944 data used as
adjusted Gatewood (1950) (516 mm) (236 mm) basis
Unland et al. (1998) Bowen energy 80% 33.39" 19.01" 23.76" 14.38" (365 mm) of Nogales 1995 precipitation
ratio (848 mm) (483 mm) (604 mm) subtracted to obtain groundwater use
Scott et al. (2000) Bowen energy 32% 14.76" 5.04" 15.75" GW100% increases to 19.33 if May-November
ratio (375 mm) (128 mm) (400 mm) data used
Scott et al. (2008b) Eddy covariance 74% 28.6" 19.3" 26.1" Charleston mesquite woodland site
(727 mm) (490 mm) ( mm)
Scott et al. (2008b) Eddy covariance 55% 26.0" 15.0" 27.3" Lewis Springs mesquite shrubland site
(660 mm) (381 mm) (693 mm)
ET = evapotranspiration for given canopy coverage; GWA = groundwater use for given canopy coverage; GW100% = groundwater use for
canopy coverage extrapolated to 100% ground cover.
 APPENDIX B

Detailed Review of Qashu (1966), Qashu and Evans (1967) and Tromble (1972)

Qashu (1966) attempted to measure the yearly transpiration of a small, confined mesquite
woodland (< 2 acres) developed on channel alluvium in the Walnut Gulch Experimental
Watershed of southeastern Arizona. He did so with two approaches: (1) a water-balance
method, and (2) measuring diurnal water table changes and applying the method of White (1932)
modified by Troxell (1936). Qashu and Evans (1967) subsequently published this study.

The study area was somewhat unusual in that it focused on the channel of Walnut Gulch where it
cut into granodiorite bedrock, with alluvium averaging just 34 m thick and the channel varying
from 70100 m wide (Figure A1). The underlying granodiorite acted as a seal that limited
downward percolation of water, allowing the alluvium to fill with water during the monsoon
season and then slowly drain through subsurface flow, bedrock seepage, and transpiration during
the fall, winter and spring. Because of this limited sediment thickness and continual water loss,
the water-bearing thickness before commencement of the monsoon season could be less than 1 m
thick. Mesquite woodland also developed directly on bedrock next to the channel, which may
have affected the results.

Figure A1. Google Earth view of the Qashu and Tromble site on Walnut Gulch showing the mesquite woodland
studied and its relationship to bedrock.

Qashu divided the year into four distinct periods to which he adapted a general water-balance
equation that he modified to calculate water use for each period. The equation included surface

39
water inflow and outflow, subsurface water inflow and outflow, soil moisture changes,
precipitation, evaporation and transpiration. The four periods of the year were defined by
distinct changes in Arizonas precipitation and plant growth regime: (1) January to April, (2)
April to July, (3) July to October, and (4) October to January. Qashu and Evans (1967) gave a
total yearly evapotranspiration for the mesquite woodland of 131 cm (4.3 ft or 51.57"). This
value, however, does not match the summed evapotranspiration for the four periods given
separately, which is 161 cm (63.4"). These values are unrealistically high for the reasons
discussed below.

As an alternative method of determining transpiration, Qashu used Troxells (1936) approach of

measuring diurnal changes in water-well levels to determine transpiration from mid-April to
mid-June (Figure A2). The transpiration values he obtained compared favorably with those
calculated using the water-balance method for the same time period. The total transpiration
(evaporation was not included) for this period by these two methods was 31.24 cm (12.30) and
32.82 cm (12.92), respectively (my determination).

Figure A2. Diurnal water-level changes for 1965 in a well associated with the mesquite woodland. These changes
were used to calculate evapotranspiration for mesquite during this time.

Because the summer monsoon prevented determinations of all components of the water-balance
equation, Qashu did not measure diurnal water table fluctuations during the summer but

40
extrapolated the transpiration values for June to July, August and September. He did this by
multiplying the June transpiration value by solar radiation ratios or potential evapotranspiration
ratios for these other months computed with respect to June. Qashu attempted to determine
evapotranspiration values for October to December using just the water-balance method, and he
calculated no values from January 1 to mid-April, assuming that no evapotranspiration occurred.

A plot of his April to June calculations paradoxically shows mesquite transpiration peaking in
early June and then declining precipitously to early growing season levels prior to the onset of
the summer monsoon in July (Figure A3). This decline reflects decreased water availability in
the aquifer and diminishing recharge capacity. Water levels dropped 2.7 m (8.86 ft) from
October 1, 1964 through the beginning of the monsoon season in July 1965, with an approximate
80-cm (31.5") drop from the beginning of the growing season in April through July (Figure A4).

Figure A3. Transpiration values calculated for the mesquite woodland from diurnal changes in water well levels.
The sharp drop in transpiration values after early June reflects exhaustion of groundwater in the aquifer.

In addition, the transpiration values he includes in his summary table for this period do not match
a plot of all values that he calculated. He gives an average transpiration value of 8.8 mm/day for
the first two weeks of June using the Troxell method, which compares with a maximum plotted

41
Figure A4. Water level fluctuations for 1964-1965 in the water well associated with the Walnut Gulch mesquite
site. The sharp rise in water levels in July reflects recharge associated with the beginning of the monsoon season.

value of 8.0 mm/day for approximately June 10. Calculated transpiration values drop sharply on
either side of this date. His maximum transpiration value using the unmodified White (1932)
method is 5.9 mm/day, which occurs on approximately the same date. In addition, his water-
balance calculations show mesquite in December using 35%40% of the water it uses in June
when mesquite evapotranspiration should be essentially 0. Such high values indicate that his
determinations of the other components of water outflow are too low, or his calculated
subsurface water inflow is too high.

In addition, the transpiration values he includes in his summary table for this period do not match
a plot of all values that he calculated. He gives an average transpiration value of 8.8 mm/day for
the first two weeks of June using the Troxell method, which compares with a maximum plotted
value of 8.0 mm/day for approximately June 10. Calculated transpiration values drop sharply on
either side of this date (Figure A3). His maximum transpiration value using the unmodified
White (1932) method is 5.9 mm/day, which occurs on approximately the same date. In addition,
his water-balance calculations show mesquite in December using 35%40% of the water it uses
in June when mesquite evapotranspiration should be essentially 0. Such high values indicate that
his determinations of the other components of water outflow are too low, or his calculated
subsurface water inflow is too high.

42
Tromble (1972) expanded this year-long study with two more years of diurnal water table
measurements for 1966 and 1967. From these he calculated transpiration values for April
through June using the Troxell method but did not attempt to extrapolate them to other periods of
the year. Tromble states that the woodland had a canopy coverage of 80% and was growing
above a perched water table, which was at a depth of ~34 m (1013 ft) during the period of
measurement. Granodiorite bedrock was as shallow as 1.5 m (5 ft), with pockets of deeper
sediment within it. The water-bearing alluvial layer was less than 2 m (6.5 ft) thick in places,
with the underlying bedrock acting as a barrier to deeper percolation.

Tromble first measured the rate of groundwater decline through subsurface seepage into bedrock
during the winter. He then subtracted this seepage value from diurnal groundwater fluctuations
to determine transpiration, an adjustment that Qashu did not make. Rather than calculating
average transpiration values for a given time interval as Qashu did, he calculated values for
specific dates, comparing them to Qashus average value for the time interval in which his dates
fell. He calculated a maximum average transpiration value of 10.7 mm/day for June 17 of 1966
and 1967. The total transpiration calculated from his measurements for the April 1 to June 20
interval was 29.06 cm (11.44") (my determination). This value is similar to what Qashu had
calculated by both diurnal changes in water levels and the water-balance method for this period.

Potential Sources of Error

The primary source of error in using diurnal water table changes to calculate transpiration stems
from overestimating the daily recharge rate as mesquite draws down the water table. This can
result from overestimating the effective sediment porosity (or specific yield) and permeability (or
hydraulic conductivity) of the aquifer. Such overestimations increase the calculated rate of water
inflow to the area beneath the woodland where transpiration is occurring, forcing an increase in
the transpiration rate to balance the water held in the aquifer. These overcalculations would then
be transferred to interpolations of transpiration for July through September.

For water-balance calculations of transpiration, either the assumed subsurface outflow is too
low, or the calculated subsurface water inflow is too high. Either condition forces an increase in
the evapotranspiration rate in order to maintain the water balance of the system. One can
determine subsurface outflow or seepage only by determining changes in the volume of stored
water in the aquifer when no water is being lost through evaporation or transpiration. In Qashus
study, this could be done only between January and mid-April, which he did by measuring the
gradual decline in the water table with time across the study area.

Qashu calculated subsurface water inflow based upon the hydraulic gradient across the area and
the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. These determine how quickly water can recharge an
area. Hydraulic conductivity is a function of permeability, which is in part a function of
porosity. Again, overdetermining these will increase the calculated inflow of water into the
system, forcing an increase in evapotranspiration rates if subsurface outflow is held constant.
Calculations of excessive transpiration rates from both diurnal water-level changes and the
water-balance method thus result from the same factor: overdetermining effective porosity
(specific yield) and/or permeability.

43
Qashus high transpiration values indicate that how he measured these supporting variables
produced erroneously high values for them. Specific yield, for example, is time dependent and
increases with the length of time that the material is allowed to drain (Figure A5). The specific
yield of alluvium measured over the course of a day the timescale of transpiration fluctuations
will be a fraction of the specific yield measured over a period of weeks or months, which is
how Qashu effectively measured it. In addition, Qashu determined permeability by measuring
the time for water to flow radially toward an open, evacuated borehole and restore the water
level to that of the surrounding water table. This method may produce a higher value than if he
could measure the time for water to flow laterally across a broad area of confined alluvium to
restore the water table after a transpiration drawdown.

Figure A5. Variation in measurements of specific yield with time for Nebraska alluvium. Qashu is measuring
specific yield in Walnut Gulch alluvium in the winter by letting the water table equilibrate over several weeks or
months. Thus the specific yield he is measuring would fall to the right of this graph. The specific yield over the
time of daily mesquite transpiration, however, would fall to the left side of this graph. Qashus determination of
specific yield would thus be approximately twice what it would be over the daily transpiration cycle, which would
double transpiration values. (From Johnson, 1967.)

An additional factor to consider is that in some parts of the study area riparian mesquite is
growing directly on exposed granodiorite bedrock and must be obtaining its water from water-
filled fractures. Mesquite could also be doing this in areas of shallow sediment thickness that
may not have an alluvial water table beneath them. The groundwater aquifer would thus be a
combination of bedrock and local sand and gravel, which would greatly reduce the aquifers
effective porosity and result in a disproportional drawdown of water in the alluvium when
transpiration occurred.

Additional Comments on Qashu Methods

For this study Qashu measured specific yield indirectly with a neutron probe, which is used to
measure changes in soil water content immediately above the water table in the capillary fringe
as the water table dropped. He then subtracted that from the water content he determined below
the water table.

44
He first calibrated the counts from the neutron probe with gravimetric measurements of the water
contents of alluvial samples. He then calculated how much water the capillary fringe could hold
and used the ratio of that water volume to alluvium volume to calculate specific yield. Specific
yield itself is time dependent and increases with the time allowed for drainage. The specific
yield of alluvium measured over the course of a day will be a fraction of the specific yield
measured over a period of weeks or months, which is effectively what Qashu did.

To determine permeability Qashu drilled a hole into the alluvium past the water table and then
inserted a pipe into the hole so that it extended below the water table but not to the bottom of the
hole. He then evacuated the hole and measured the time required for water to fill the pipe to the
level of the water table in the surrounding soil. He used these time measurements and several
distance measurements to calculate permeability and thus hydraulic conductivity. The high
values for permeability that he apparently obtained would indicate that the rate at which water
flowed into the hole to equalize water levels in the pipe were greater than the rate at which water
would flow through confined alluvium.

45