Table 2.

A comparison of techniques for managing Prosopis and their advantages and disadvantages.

Control type	Advantages	Disadvantages
Biological control	• Relatively inexpensive once implemented • Works over large areas, including areas that are inaccessible for mechanical control • Minimal associated costs after biocontrol agent is released (monitoring is required)	• Biocontrol agents have not yet had substantial impacts on reducing stand density or extent of invasions and rates of spread in some areas such as South Africa but have been more successful in places like Australia • Initial research is expensive • Potential to spread across borders unintentionally • Inapplicable in areas where native Prosopis is weedy • Conflicts of interest around the use of biological control in areas where Prosopis invasion is seen as beneficial (e.g. South Africa, Kenya)
Mechanical control	• Efficient at removing Prosopis over large areas	• Labour and capital intensive
Chemical control	• Efficient at removing Prosopis over large areas	• Labour and capital intensive
Utilization	• Maximizes on benefits to be had from biological invasions • Promotes rural social–economical development • Reduces overexploitation of native spp. • Profits counteract management costs	• Encouraging utilization may create dependency on the species, thereby exacerbating conflicts of interest • Some areas have lower-value Prosopis spp. (more thorny, bitter pods, shrubby forms) making utilization more difficult • Many Prosopis invasions are in remote areas making large-scale utilization difficult
Cultural control/other control (e.g. fire, grazing and livestock transport management)	• Low costs • Can also prevent other types of degradation	• Requires people to change perceptions • Large-scale education programmers are needed • Does not always work for all Prosopis spp.—e.g. fire-tolerant hybrids • Not applicable in all areas, e.g. places with low biomass and fire-tolerant hybrids