Early introduction of acacias and mesquites to Africa?

The trees of Acacia (aka wattle trees) and Prosopis (aka mesquites) are two related groups of dryland trees, native to Australia and the Americas respectively. In Africa, they are an invasive species, ofen considered a weed or pest, but there is indication they can be crops with great economic potential. As invasive species, plant diseases or insects need to be introduced, so these trees will thrive in the climate of Africa. In particular, this applies to much of South Africa, all of North Africa, much of West Africa/Sahel, and Ethiopia, basically anywhere which isn't rainforest or desert.

Acacias and mesquites have similar benefits and drawbacks. They give ample amounts of firewood, useful for making charcoal--the need for firewood and charcoal production has deforested a ton of land in sub-Saharan Africa over the centuries. And they produce a lot of seeds, which can be pounded into flour to either be used on its own or mixed with other sources of flour in a way which enriches it. Most species of acacias and mesquites also fix nitrogen, enhancing the soil for other crops. Combined with their usefulness as windbreaks, they are thus great for fighting desertification. On the downside, the trees easily take over grazing land, ruining the lives of pastoralists. They also are known for their large thorns, which can be a hassle toward productive utilisation of them. They also monopolise the usage of local water sources, as their roots grow deep to seek out any water available--this deep growth complicates removal of the tree, as it can easily regenerate from its deep roots.

So let's presume that during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, a few species of acacias and mesquites end up widespread in Africa. What effects will they have on the local people? Would it be an incentive for pastoralists to settle down, since the trees are interfering with traditional lifestyles and producing charcoal from the trees is easier? Could some acacias or mesquites even be partially or fully domesticated, producing larger amounts of seeds and growing quicker for human benefit? Would Africa see a population boom, with North Africa once again returning to being the "breadbasket of Rome" as it was in Antiquity? Does the amount of charcoal produced mean North Africa and West Africa (and perhaps Ethiopia) can more easily modernise and perhaps even industrialise? Historically, the issue of firewood was a problem in Ethiopia--if mesquite and acacia trees, especially (semi-)domesticated variants, are readily available, will there be increasing urbanisation and development? I'd assume also that these trees will grow well elsewhere in the Mediterranean in Southern Europe and the Near East, so it might not just be Africa which benefits from the introduction.

Am I overrating the potential of these trees in Africa, or is there a real chance a somewhat controlled introduction of these trees in Africa will result in economic development there?
 
This is confusing because there are native African “acacias”

I should clarify--this should mean acacia trees native to places outside Africa (especially Australia), or mesquite/Prosopis trees native to places outside Africa (especially the Americas), being introduced to Africa sometime around the middle of the second millennium AD. Africa's a big place too, so introducing these trees to non-native places elsewhere in Africa would count. Ideally, though, there's probably only a few species which would produce enough benefits to outweight the side effects.
 
All useful plants (which incidentally have been introduced into many parts of Africa), but perhaps not as useful as mesquites or acacias in terms of the sheer impact on the environment and culture. Nopals seem interesting since they have been used to prevent erosion, plus you could get a cochineal industry out of them. And there's many useful species of agave, but the most likely use would probably be for the production of sisal and henequen.
 
The fact these trees have been proven to be very detrimental to pastoralists from America to Ethiopia shows that they might be very interesting for a ruler to use to force people to settle down. Since acacias and mesquites produce useful food and also firewood/charcoal, they can be used to support increased urban density which could be huge in the history of North Africa/the Sahel/Ethiopia. Am I correct in saying so?
 
Top