Globally, invasive species are the second most critical factor in reducing biodiversity, followed by habitat loss. While most of them were adopted to bring about positive socioeconomic and environmental effects (Laxén, 2007), they currently have complex effects on socioeconomic and ecological aspects, primarily affecting rural livelihoods, and some effects are irreversible (Eschen et al., 2023). One of the most predominant and dangerous invasive alien species, Prosopis juliflora (hereafter Prosopis), is currently found in over 129 countries, mainly in arid and semi-arid regions of the world. The species is well adapted to harsh environmental conditions and has spread to most arid and semi-arid areas of the world, causing positive and negative impacts (Obonyo et al., 2017). These days, according to Kamiri et al. (2024), Prosopis has posed a severe threat to human and animal life in most East African countries, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, Sudan, and Tanzania. Dakhil et al. (2021) also underscored that Prosopis is among the most problematic invasive trees in tropical and subtropical regions. Kamiri et al. (2024) also labelled Prosopis as the most common alien invasive plant species in East Africa. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified the species as one of the world’s top 100 least-wanted species (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Kamiri et al., 2024). The species is a versatile tree that can be grown in various temperatures and soil conditions. It is also a fast-growing tree that can supply essential goods and has a nitrogen-fixing nature, which implies that it can improve soil fertility and increase crop yields. On the other side, Prosopis may also become an invasive species. It can produce dense thickets that reduce biodiversity by replacing native species.

Additionally, it may compete with crops for water and nutrients, which could reduce yields. The consequent negative impacts are increasing quickly, making the urgent need to develop robust and practical management strategies necessary to both mitigate the adverse effects and fully use the benefits (Shackleton et al., 2014; Patnaik et al., 2017; Bezaredie et al., 2023). Zeray et al. (2017); Abdulahi et al. (2017), and Shiferaw et al. (2022) are just a few of the well-documented examples of P. juliflora’s magnitude of proliferation and detrimental effects in different parts of arid and semi-arid areas. Not much comprehensive research has been done on its benefits other than using it as a source of fuelwood, fences, animal feed, and to make charcoal (Haji and Mohammed, 2013; Sola et al., 2021; Shiferaw et al., 2022). Thus, the debate is whether Prosopis ought to be eliminated or seen as a helpful resource that may be used. Thus, based on a large body of scientific literature and case studies, this review intends to shed light on the potential use of Prosopis as a helpful resource and feasible management system. Furthermore, the study evaluated whether controlling it through utilization could be a feasible alternative, presenting a paradigm shift from considering it as a “weed” to appreciating it as a “wealth.” To that end, based on the literature, this systematic review would address the following issues:

Native to South and Central America over the past 200 years, Prosopis has been spread all over the world spreading from southern Mexico to Panama and from the Caribbean Islands to northern South America (Venezuela and Northern Peru) (Tewari et al., 2011; Hussain et al., 2021; Dakhil et al., 2021 and Kamiri et al., 2024). These days, it can be found in several semi-arid and arid climate zones, such as the Middle East, Australia the Arabic Peninsula, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa, as well as other parts of Southern America, India, Pakistan, Australia, and the Pacific (Abedelnoor et al., 2009; Tewari et al., 2011). Prosopis has been introduced to several hot tropical and arid regions of different countries with varied purposes like providing fodder, fuel wood and shade, for dune stabilization, combating desertification as well, and attacking deforestation (Hussain et al., 2021; Kamiri et al., 2024). For example, since Prosopis is drought-tolerant, the Derg regime deliberately introduced it to Ethiopia’s arid and semi-arid areas in the 1970s and 1980s with the intention of environmental rehabilitation (considered an afforestation measure to reverse desertification) (Wakie et al., 2012; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; PENHA, 2015) (see Box 1 ). However, as of right now, it has had numerous unforeseen damaging social, economic, and ecological effects (Wakie et al., 2012; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; Rettberg, 2014; Ilukor et al., 2016; FDRE-MLF, 2017; Patnaik et al., 2017; Kamiri et al., 2024). Similarly, it was introduced in the late 1970s and 1980s to Kenya to address deforestation, desertification, fodder programs, and fuel shortage (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Maundu et al., 2009). Likewise, the species was introduced in arid areas of eastern Africa like Somalia to provide fuel wood and stabilize dune systems after prolonged droughts and deforestation in the 1970s and 1980s (Rembold et al., 2015).

Prosopis was introduced to Sudan in the early 19^th century to combat desertification and as a source of fuel wood (Elfadl and Luukkanen, 2006). It was introduced to India by the end of the 20^th century to recover salt and sodic-affected lands besides the need of the species for fuel wood, fiber and timber (Mishra et al., 2003; Sharma and Dakshini, 1998; Sato, 2013), and into the United Arab Emirates during the 1970s to combat desertification (El-Keblawy and Al-Rawai, 2007, and Howari et al., 2022). Similarly, it was introduced to Djibouti in the 1950s for shade and shelter and as a street tree in many towns. Prosopis juliflora was introduced to Djibouti in the 1980s and planted in different parts of the country to control desertification (Gianvenuti et al., 2018). Prosopis was introduced into Oman to combat desertification, enhance land productivity, and serve as a fast-growing ornamental tree in landscapes from Latin American countries in the 1970s (Al-Rawahy et al., 2003). Prosopis was introduced into South Africa in the 1980s for erosion control and windbreak and as a source of fuel wood (Maitre et al., 2002). Similarly, Prosopis was brought into Pakistan to provide a valuable source of income to people experiencing poverty and for the reclamation of dunes stabilization during the 1950s and 1960s. In comparison, it was dispersed into different country regions in the early 1970s (Essa et al., 2017).

Prosopis is a very robust invader that may swiftly take advantage of a suitable environment and control entire ecosystems due to its long life cycle, resistance to saline soils, ability to withstand droughts, high seed output, and dormancy of its seeds in the soil. Anywhere near human settlements, along highways and cattle trails, are suitable for growing Prosopis trees. Its main mechanisms for dispersing seeds are flooding and livestock (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Rembold et al., 2015). Due to possible future increases in temperature due to climate change, arid and semi-arid areas lands, mainly in Africa, are at the highest risk of invasion than other moist biomes (Dakhil et al., 2021). Since its introduction for environmental purposes in different parts of the world, Prosopis has been expanding alarmingly and now become a critical environmental concern, for instance. Alien invasive species have invaded much rangeland in Ethiopia’s Somali and Afar regional states, and this invasion appears to continue (FAO, 2008; Eschen et al., 2023; FMECD, 2014; Zeray et al., 2017). Even in regions that seem to have been eradicated, soil-borne seeds can germinate, and trees can grow more quickly than under natural conditions due to previous insufficient attempts to restore reclaimed ground and avoid reinvasion by Prosopis seeds (Haregeweyn et al., 2013; FDRE-MLF, 2017).

Agropastoral communities’ means of subsistence and food security are at risk due to Prosopis, which primarily affects the arid and semi-arid lowlands of the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Eritrea, and Somalia are among the countries most severely affected) (FMECD, 2014). According to Shitanda et al. (2013); Haregeweyn et al. (2013), and Balcha (2022), the tree has widely expanded, taking up most of the grazing zones and creating impenetrable thickets that hinder the establishment of other plants. Prosopis thickets can completely cover an area, out-competing native species and quickly reducing forage plants; in the worst-case scenario, the pastoral community may be forced to relocate their villages as a result of the invasions; they also harbor predators and prevent undergrowth; animals that consume pods suffer from tooth loss and other health issues, which can sometimes lead to the death of domestic animals (significant assets of the pastoral community) (Pasiecznik, 2018; Edrisi et al., 2020). Study communities in Afar (Rogers et al., 2017) reported increasing proximity to wild animals, threatening their livestock and children. Besides, thorns make it difficult for pastoralists to penetrate the dense thickets to collect fuelwood, and thorns cause severe inflammation that may take a week to subside. Prosopis obstructed paths and roads used by both humans and livestock, making accessibility of grazing land and water points more complicated and requiring longer walking times to get to desired destinations (Mwangi and Swallow, 2005; Hussain et al., 2021; Shiferaw et al., 2022). Mehari (2015), on his part, stressed that the Prosopis invasion has hindered transhumance: seasonal migration of herds in search of feed and water (which is a common way of life in the pastoral community, and one of the risk management strategies being employed by pastoralists to maintain their livestock assets and also a feasible mechanism for the recovery of grazing lands).

Due to the lack of fodder in Prosopis-infested areas, a study conducted by Zeray et al. (2017) for the Dire Dawa city administration found a statistically significant difference in milk production revenue. Inkermann (2014) also noted that the size of the livestock herd, the primary source of income for pastoral communities, was declining in Ethiopia’s pastoral areas as a result of recurring animal diseases and a reduction in grazing spaces, which was mainly brought on by Prosopis species’ invasion of rangeland. Prosopis has also impacted the health of people and animals. Its thorns can cause lameness, blindness, infections, hand and leg ulcers, itching, and eye injuries. Prosopis pod consumption causes impaction and constipation in children. Long-term ingestion of the pod and excessive seed accumulation after feeding results in the death of cattle (Wakie et al., 2012; Inkermann, 2014; Abdulahi et al., 2017; Balcha, 2022). Thickets of Prosopis serve as excellent mosquito breeding grounds (Patnaik et al., 2017), and the most often cited issue was the prevalence of malaria linked to the thickets’ growth (Wakie et al., 2012; Inkermann, 2014; Abdulahi et al., 2017). According to Hussain et al. (2021), its ability to flower more than once yearly enables Prosopis to cause health problems like allergies. Women should be responsible for looking for firewood and water, where the risk of being affected by the thorn is high (Inkermann, 2014). The species has a significant ecological impact; in Kenya, reports have indicated that it has reduced ground vegetation cover and reduced herbaceous species from regenerating (Muturi, 2012). A study by Tewari et al. (2011) reported that the invasion of Prosopis juliflora has turned the grazing lands into inaccessible hostile. Prosopis’s thickets in the Afar region (Ethiopia) have decreased nearly 75% of the carrying capacity of arable lands in New Mexico, and around 60% of pasture land in the Banni area of Asia has vanished. Prosopis has an impact on birdlife as well. A study in India revealed a negative correlation between the diversity of bird species and non-native vegetation (Barhadiya et al., 2022). Another study also reported Prosopis’ impact on birds through their chicks’ mortality (Chandrasekaran et al., 2014). Prosopis also strains the infrastructure that pastoralism depends on: access is hindered by narrowed and blocked roads and tracks, and vehicles with inflatable tyres are more likely to puncture due to the thorns. This reduces opportunities to access markets because large vehicles cannot transport the livestock long distances, and herding options are complicated by the tendency to lose stock in the thickets as the roads become less visible (Rogers et al., 2017).

Local communities in different parts of the world have varied outlooks towards Prosopis. A study by Tewari et al. (2011) affirmed that rural populations in arid and semi-arid tropics are a little apprehensive of the species as they consider that species adversely affects crop production and fear it may become a weed. Thorny stems and branches of the species, which often cause injuries to humans and animals and hinder agricultural operations, are the primary reasons for the villagers’ dislike of the species. A study in India (Duenn et al., 2017) reported that the pastoralists do not perceive the Prosopis invasion as a significant problem. Mesfin (2006), on the other hand, reported that pastoral and agropastoral communities in Afar, Ethiopia, have come to recognize the ecological advantages of the species, such as enhanced saline lands, decreased wind damage, decreased erosion, and improved soil fertility.

Nevertheless, the overall harm caused by Prosopis surpasses these environmental advantages, and the people living in the area resent this and fiercely advocate for its destruction (Sweddy, 2015). According to Berhanu and Tesfaye (2006), the people who live in Somalia and Afar, Ethiopia, have different viewpoints. Pastoral communities usually have negative opinions toward the species because of its harmful consequences, which outweigh its benefits, on rangelands, farming regions, access to waterways, and health issues for humans and cattle. However, professionals, local urban populations, and specialists in natural resources all hold conflicting views regarding the species. According to Chekole (2014), the local community in the Afar region of Ethiopia has perceived Prosopis negatively due to its fast invasion rate and negative impacts like loss of biodiversity, physical harm to humans and livestock, blocking access roads to farms and irrigation canals, where the majority of people preferred complete eradication of the species. This is despite the plant’s benefits in improving soil fertility and creating a microclimate for the plant. According to a Mehari (2015) survey study conducted in the Afar region of Ethiopia, even though the pastoral community frequently used the species for fuel wood, fencing homesteads, and house construction, 84% of the surveyed households rated the species as undesirable because it limited transhumance, occupied settlement areas, and affected the availability of grass and multipurpose trees and bushes. Similarly, a study by Seid et al. (2020) in the Afar region of Ethiopia reported that nearly 90% of interviewed respondents had disfavored the species due to its invasive nature.

In Kenya, the local population, particularly in rural areas compared to urban regions, holds a negative perception of Prosopis and would prefer not to live with it, even if it were used as a source of money in the form of charcoal, poles, and pods (Maundu et al., 2009). In South Africa, Shackleton et al. (2015) reported a negative attitude towards Prosopis, where costs associated with the species outweighed its benefits, and the local community recommends its reduction or eradication. In South Africa, differing views were reported by Ravhuhali et al. (2021), where positive attitudes due to their potential as a source of good nutritional value and serve as an alternative source of protein and minerals for livestock during the dry season were reported. However, communities developed negative attitudes towards this species due to its adverse impact on the groundwater and its invasive effect on grazing lands.

Regarding the management system of Prosopis, Shibru (2015) argued that there is limited knowledge and experience in managing and utilizing Prosopis, and there have been few policies or strategies for quick action. According to Shibru (2015) and Kamiri et al. (2024), the management system can be divided into four categories: mechanical control (which involves physically uprooting or removing plants from the site, often combined with burning, using hand-held or power-driven tools), chemical control (applying herbicides to prevent new growth or kill seedlings after cutting or burning), biological control (using living organisms to control pest species), and management through utilization (exploiting the economic potential of invasive species to meet basic human needs while controlling their spread and potentially eradicating them). Despite various attempts to eliminate Prosopis in different countries, the outcomes have not met expectations (Laxén, 2007; McConnachie et al., 2012). For instance, other efforts were made to eradicate the species using herbicides and mechanical measures in the USA, Mexico, Argentina, Sudan, Australia, and Pakistan, where little success was achieved. For example, common control measures in the Afar region (Ethiopia) include uprooting seedlings, cutting, and burning (Seid et al., 2020). As noted by Ayanu et al. (2014), eradication trials in Ethiopia (Awash region) using cutting and burning proved to be highly labor-intensive, expensive, and ineffective considering the rapid regrowth of the species that produces numerous sprouts shortly after clearing. Besides, due to failure in eradication, scientists worldwide started to explore the optimum utilization of Prosopis, where the species’ benefits have been recognized recently (Tewari et al., 2011). Obonyo et al. (2017), for instance, recommended the commercialization of the plant seed for animal feed and human production as well as for medicinal use as a feasible way of minimizing Prosopis’ expansion rate (see Boxes 2 , 3 ). According to Pasiecznik et al. (2001) and Wise et al. (2012), if intentional management practices are not implemented, the shrubs will continue to spread to new areas and eventually become the dominant vegetation. By implementing further management and utilizing Prosopis, we can open up land for agriculture, promote the recovery of indigenous plant species, and reduce the risk of injuries to humans and animals.

Some scholars also argue that communities that depend on Prosopis as an alternative source of income may suffer if the plant is wholly eradicated (Tessema, 2012; Shitanda et al., 2013; Haregeweyn et al., 2013; Seid and Bekele, 2014; FDRE-MLF, 2017). As a result, a new management system with a notion of ‘eradiation through utilization’ has been promoted by different actors (Maundu et al., 2009; Borokini and Babalola, 2012; McConnachie et al., 2012; Haji and Mohammed, 2013; Wakie et al., 2012; Saleh et al., 2023). For instance, Chekole (2014) and Koech et al. (2021) revealed that, due to unsuccessful attempts made to control the spread and further invasion of Prosopis in Baringo County of Kenya, a new strategy has been launched by the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry to produce charcoal from the species. According to this report, continuous use of the plant through charcoal production has dramatically reduced its spread, and pruning the Prosopis shrub prevents them from taking over and limits seed production, besides its economic benefits of being an alternative source of income. The Ministry of Agriculture, Water, Fishery, Livestock and Marine Resources in Djibouti developed a national Prosopis management strategy to manage Prosopis sustainably by fully exploiting its commercial potential and improving the livelihoods of the community (Gianvenuti et al., 2018). On similar notion, according to Wakie et al. (2012) and Shitanda et al. (2013), the Ethiopian government and non-governmental organizations are presently concentrating on managing the plant’s proliferation through usage because total eradication of Prosopis is both challenging and costly (Tewari et al., 2011; Tessema, 2012; Walter and Armstrong, 2014; Ilukor et al., 2016; Assefa et al., 2023). In line with this notion, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) countries declared the “Addis Ababa declaration” in 2014 with the motto of “effective management and utilization of Prosopis in the greater Horn of Africa” (PENHA, 2015).

Prosopis juliflora, introduced into different parts of the world with environmental and economic intention, is among the widespread invasive species currently found in arid and semi-arid regions. It is a very versatile tree that can be grown in a wide range of temperatures and soil conditions, and due to its high adaptability to harsh environmental conditions, it can quickly spread into the drier areas of the world, causing both positive and negative impacts.

Prosopis presents a range of multifaceted adverse effects on ecosystems and local communities. It competes with native species, leading to a rapid decline in forage plants and inhibiting the growth of underbrush. Additionally, Prosopis can attract predators and obstruct pathways and roads utilized by humans and livestock, thereby complicating access to grazing lands and water sources. Animals that consume its pods frequently experience dental loss and various health complications. The thorns of Prosopis pose further risks, potentially causing lameness, blindness, infections, ulcers on extremities, itching, and ocular injuries. For children, pod consumption can lead to gastrointestinal impaction and constipation, while long-term ingestion may result in cattle mortality. Furthermore, excessive seed accumulation following feeding can lead to the death of goats and camels. Prosopis thickets also serve as breeding habitats for mosquitoes, contributing to public health concerns, and they deplete aquifers through their extensive root systems, which access deep water sources. This encroachment reduces ground vegetation cover and diminishes the diversity of herbaceous species, thereby hindering transhumance practices. Overall, the proliferation of Prosopis strains the infrastructure essential for pastoralism, primarily by narrowing and obstructing vital roads and tracks.

Besides all these side effects, Prosopis has a wide range of economic, social, cultural, health, and ecological benefits. It provides construction materials, poles, timber, windbreak, and charcoal; serves as soil conservation and rehabilitation of degraded and saline soils; and is used in animal feed production. It serves as an alternative substitute for ethanol production; its flowers are good sources of nectar, leading to high honey production; it is used as a significant source of gum and resin; it has a high potential for the production of nutrient-dense goods such as juice, wine, gum, powder, essential oils, and drinks; the animal feed prepared from Prosopis can increase milk production for lactating animals and enhances body weight gain in goats. The tree serves as a place where traditional ceremonies, rituals, and storytelling are practiced; it provides valuable shade in hot and arid regions, reducing near-ground temperature and offering relief from the scorching sun, and the shade can create comfortable outdoor spaces for social gatherings, community events, and leisure activities. Local artisans can create intricate carvings, sculptures, furniture, and other decorative items from Prosopis, showcasing the cultural heritage and skills of the community. The environmental benefits of Prosopis include, among others, the leaves are organic fertilizers and considerably increase the amount of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium in soils; the species has a deeper root system that aids in stabilizing the soil and reducing erosion, decreasing salinity and plays a significant role in reclaiming unproductive lands. Plantations of Prosopis were found to enhance groundwater recharge; it provides food and habitat for birds, insects, and mammals; by removing impurities from runoff water, Prosopis can aid in improving the quality of the water; it plays a significant role in sequestering carbon and combating desertification; and it contributes in reducing dust pollution. Prosopis has different health benefits. The leaves, roots, tissues, parks, and fruits have antifungal, antibacterial, antibiotic, anticancer, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial purposes.

Having both adverse effects and benefits gives the local community diverse attitudes toward this species. Occasionally, pastoral communities are a little apprehensive of the species as they consider that species adversely affect pasture lands and crop production. On the other hand, due to its ecological benefits like improvement in soil fertility, erosion prevention, improvement of saline lands, creation of cooler microclimate, and reduction of wind damage, they tend to consider the species beneficial. In areas where side effects outweigh its benefits, the local community members are bitter about it and firmly push the idea of its eradication. Environmentalists and scholars argue that the complete eradication of Prosopis might be costly and, in some cases, have unforeseen effects on the livelihood of the local community and the environment. However, the consequent negative impacts are increasing quickly, making the urgent need to develop robust and practical management strategies necessary to both mitigate the adverse effects and fully use the benefits. As a result, commercialization (with a notion of management through utilization) of the plant for animal feed and human production, as well as for medicinal use, is a feasible way of minimizing the rate of expansion of Prosopis. Using the pods of Prosopis for animal feed might be the best alternative for dry land areas where animal pasture is scarce and will become more severe with a changing climate. Besides, scholars advocate awareness creation campaigns, which are very important to draw public attention and awareness regarding the management and control of the Prosopis invasion. Cross-boundary endeavors for controlling Prosopis juliflora expansion to new regions, particularly in countries predicted as edges of high potential invasion, are required to efficiently manage the species invasion, particularly in the tropical and subtropical broadleaf-forests and shrub lands.