Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:56:30.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Control with Aphthona spp. Affects Seedbank Composition and Native Grass Reestablishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dean Cline ,
Chelsea Juricek ,
Rodney G. Lym  and
Donald R. Kirby
Dean Cline
Affiliation:
Animal and Range Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Chelsea Juricek
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Rodney G. Lym*
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Donald R. Kirby
Affiliation:
Animal and Range Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aphthona spp. flea beetles have established and reduced the density of leafy spurge in much of the western United States. One way to measure the long-term impact and effectiveness of a weed control program is by monitoring the changes in the seedbank over time. The change in leafy spurge stem density and seed in the seedbank were evaluated 5 yr after Aphthona spp. were released to control this weed in the Little Missouri National Grasslands in southwestern North Dakota. Leafy spurge density and seed in both loamy overflow and loamy ecological sites decreased, whereas desirable (high-seral) forbs increased 5 yr after the biological control agents were released. Leafy spurge topgrowth was reduced from an average of over 200 stems/m2 to less than 8 stems/m2 in the most densely infested sites, and leafy spurge seed was reduced from an average of 68% of the seedbank to only 14% in both ecological sites. High-seral forb seed increased by over 300% in the seedbank, which indicated the floristic quality of the sites, was returning to a preinfestation state. Species with the largest increase included western rock jasmine and fringed sage, which increased at least three-fold in both sites. Less desirable low-seral forbs and grasses accounted for about 30% of the seedbank. In a greenhouse study, native grass production was reduced nearly 50% when grown in soil from Aphthona spp. release sites compared to nonrelease sites. Switchgrass production was reduced to a greater extent (66%) than green needlegrass, little bluestem, or western wheatgrass. The cause and extent of reduced native grass production in sites where Aphthona spp. were released has yet to be determined. The decrease in leafy spurge topgrowth and seed in the soil seedbank as desirable species seed increased, should lead to the long-term recovery of the plant community.

Keywords

Leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. EPHESfringed sage, Artemisia frigida Willdgreen needlegrass, Nassella viridula (Trin.) Barkworthlittle bluestem, Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash-Gouldswitchgrass, Panicum virgatum L.western rock jasmine, Androsace occidentalis Purshwestern wheatgrass, Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) A. LöveInvasive speciesbiological controlleafy spurge flea beetlerevegetation
Type
Research Articles
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 120 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, G. L., Delfosse, E. S., Spencer, N. R., Prosser, C. W., and Richard, R. D. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge: an emerging success story. Pages 15–25. in Spencer, N. R., editor. Proceedings of the X International Symposium on the Biological Control of Weeds. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
Aziz, F. P. 1989. Soil Survey of Golden Valley County, North Dakota. USDA SCS. Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office. 150.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. B. and Mundal, D. A. 1990. Introduction of insects for the biological control of leafy spurge in North Dakota. North Dakota Farm Res 47/6:7–8.Google Scholar
Coffin, D. P. and Lauenroth, W. K. 1989. Spatial and temporal variation in the seedbank of a semiarid grassland. Amer. J. Bot 76:53–58.Google Scholar
Great Plains Flora Association 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS University of Kansas Press. 1402.Google Scholar
Hanna, A. Y., Harlan, P. W., and Lewis, D. T. 1982. Soil available water as influenced by landscape position and aspect. Agron. J 74:999–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, R. W., Richard, R. D., Parker, P. E., and Wendel, L. E. 1997. Distribution of biological control agents of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) in the United States: 1988–1996. Biol. Cont 10:129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P., Dunn, P. H., Schroeder, D., and Vonmoos, R. 1985. Biological control of leafy spurge in North America. in Watson, A. K., editor. Leafy Spurge. Monograph Series No. 3. Champaign, IL: (now Lawrence, KS) Weed Science Society of America. 79–92.Google Scholar
Hickman, M. V., Messersmith, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1989. Picloram release from leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) roots in the field. Weed Sci 37:167–174.Google Scholar
Kava, J. A. 2003. Secondary succession of mixed grass prairie following control of leafy spurge using Aphthona spp. flea beetles. M.S. thesis. Fargo, ND North Dakota State University. 51.Google Scholar
Kirby, D. R., Carlson, R. B., Krabbenhoft, K. D., Mundal, D. A., and Kirby, M. M. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge with introduced flea beetles (Aphthona spp.). J. Range Manage 53:305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, D. R., Lym, R. G., Sterling, J. J., and Hull Sieg, C. 2003. Observation: Leafy spurge control in western prairie fringed orchid habitat. J. Range Manage 56:466–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L. 1989. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA Academic Press, Inc. 462.Google Scholar
Lesica, P. and Hanna, D. 2004. Indirect effects of biological control on plant diversity vary across sites in Montana grasslands. Conserv. Biol 18:444–454.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technol 12:367–373.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 2005. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pages 99–118. in Duncan, C. L. and Clark, J. K., editors. Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control and improved forage production with herbicides. J. Range Manage 38:386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control, forage production, and economic return with fall-applied herbicides. Weed Technol 8:824–829.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Nelson, J. A. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with Aphthona spp. along railroad right-of-ways. Weed Technol 14:642–646.Google Scholar
Malo, D. D. and Worcester, B. K. 1975. Soil fertility and crop responses at selected landscape positions. Agron. J 67:397–401.Google Scholar
Markle, D. M. and Lym, R. G. 2001. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control and herbage production with imazapic. Weed Technol 15:474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R. A., Beran, D. B., and Gaussoin, R. E. 2001. Restoring tallgrass prairie species mixtures on leafy spurge-infested rangeland. J. Range Manage 54:362–369.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A. and Nissen, S. J. 1998. Revegetating leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland with native tallgrasses. Weed Technol 12:381–390.Google Scholar
Nelson, J. R. 1961. Composition and structure of the principal woody vegetation types in the North Dakota Badlands. M.S. thesis. Fargo, ND North Dakota State University. 54.Google Scholar
Northern Great Plains Floristic Quality Assessment Panel, 2001. Coefficients of conservatism for the vascular flora of the Dakotas and adjacent grasslands. Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2001-0001. 32.Google Scholar
Omodt, H. W., Johnsgard, G. A., Patterson, D. D., and Olson, O. P. 1968. The major soils of North Dakota. Fargo, ND North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 472. 60.Google Scholar
Perez, C. J., Waller, S. S., Moser, L. E., Stubbendieck, J. L., and Steuter, A. A. 1998. Seedbank characteristics of a Nebraska sandhills prairie. J. Range Manage 51:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1981. Seed banks in soils. Adv. Appl. Biol 6:1–55.Google Scholar
Templeton, A. R. and Levin, D. A. 1979. Evolutionary consequences of seed plots. Amer. Naturalist 114:232–249.Google Scholar
Ter Heerdt, G. N. J., Verweij, G. L., Bekker, R. M., and Bakker, J. P. 1996. An improved method for seed-bank analysis: seedling emergence after removing the soil by sieving. Funct. Ecol 10:144–151.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. and Grime, J. P. 1979. Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J. Ecol 67:893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, B. F. and Sanderson, M. A. 2000. Seedbank diversity in grazing lands of the northeast United States. J. Range Manage 53:114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2006. USDA/NRCS Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/index.html. Accessed: January 27, 2008.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2007. Electronic Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTG). http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/. Accessed: February 11, 2004.Google Scholar
Wolf, J. K. 1987. Influence of landscape position on soil water, runoff, soil erosion and crop yield. Ph.D Dissertation. Fargo, ND North Dakota State University. 107.Google Scholar