Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T23:34:30.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revegetating Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)-Infested Rangeland with Native Tallgrasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert A. Masters  and
Scott J. Nissen
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Science Pest Management, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Degradation of Great Plains rangelands can be linked to past management practices that reduced native species diversity and accelerated establishment and expansion of exotic weeds and less desirable native species. Leafy spurge is an exotic perennial weed that infests more than 1 million ha in the northern Great Plains and reduces rangeland carrying capacity by competing with desirable forages and causing infested areas to be undesirable to cattle and wildlife. Research was conducted to determine the feasibility of using herbicides to suppress leafy spurge and other resident vegetation, which facilitated planting and establishment of native tallgrasses. Four experiments were conducted where 0.28, 0.56, and 0.84 kg ai/ha imazapyr and 0.1 kg ai/ha sulfometuron were applied alone and in combination and 0.84 kg ai/ha glyphosate was applied to leafy spurge-infested range sites in fall 1991 near Ainsworth, NE, and in fall 1991, 1992, and 1993 near Ansley, NE. Research areas were burned about 200 d after herbicide application to reduce plant residue. Monoculture stands of big bluestem and switchgrass were then no-till planted in each experiment and indiangrass was no-till planted in experiments initiated at Ansley in 1992 and 1993. Yields of the planted grasses, leafy spurge, and other vegetation were measured in August at each location starting the year after planting. Imazapyr was an essential component of treatments applied before planting to facilitate establishment of highly productive stands of the tallgrasses. Generally, yields were maximized by fall treatments of 0.28 kg/ha imazapyr + 0.1 kg/ha sulfometuron for big bluestem, 0.84 kg/ha imazapyr for indiangrass, and 0.84 kg/ha imazapyr + 0.1 kg/ha sulfometuron for switchgrass. Yields of the planted grasses were frequently four times greater where these herbicides were applied compared to where glyphosate or no herbicide were applied. Leafy spurge yields were usually reduced in areas where tallgrass yields were greatest. The sequential combination of suppressing vegetation with fall-applied herbicides, burning standing dead plant residue, then no-till planting desirable native tallgrasses in the spring increased productivity of these leafy spurge-infested range sites.

Keywords

Imazapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinesulfometuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. #3 EPHFSbig bluestem, Andropogon gerardii Vitman ‘Pawnee’ # ANOGEindiangrass, Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash ‘Holt'switchgrass, Panicum virgatum L. ‘Trailblazer’ # PANVIBiological diversityprescribed firegrassland restorationimazapyrglyphosatesulfometuronnative plantswarm-season grassescool-season grassesSE, standard error of the mean
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 381 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the 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

Belcher, J. W. and Wilson, S. D. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. J. Range Manage. 42:172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, P. H. 1979, The distribution of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and other weedy Euphorbia spp. in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, F. B. and Harrison, C. M. 1976. Description and analysis of vegetation. In Chapman, S. B., ed. Methods in Plant Ecology. New York: Halstead Press. pp. 85–155.Google Scholar
Harris, P., Dunn, P. H., Schroeder, D., and Vonmoos, R. 1985. Biological control of leafy spurge in North America. In Watson, A. K., ed. Leafy Spurge Monograph No. 3. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
Kuzila, M. 1989. Soil associations and series. In Bleed, A. and Flowerday, C., eds. An Atlas of the Sand Hills. Resources Atlas No. 5. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 58–66.Google Scholar
Landgraf, B. K., Fay, P. K., and Havstad, K. M. 1984. Utilization of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) by sheep. Weed Sci. 32:348–352.Google Scholar
Larcher, W. 1980. Physiological Plant Ecology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 303 p.Google Scholar
Launchbaugh, J. L. and Owensby, C. E. 1970. Seeding rate and first year stand relationships for six native grasses. J. Range Manage. 23:414–417.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Leafy spurge control with herbicides in North Dakota: 20 year summary. J. Range Manage. 38:149–154.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Leafy spurge control and herbicide residue from annual picloram and 2,4-D application. J. Range Manage. 40:194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G., Sedivec, K. K., and Kirby, D. R. 1997. Leafy spurge control with angora goats and herbicides. J. Range Manage. 50:123–128.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Gaussoin, R. E., and Beran, D. D. 1998. Revegetation of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.)-infested grasslands with native grass and legume mixtures. Guadalajara, Mexico. Soc. Range Manage. Abstr. 75. 92 p.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Nissen, S. J., Gaussoin, R. E., Beran, D. D., and Stougaard, R. N. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicides improve restoration of Great Plains grasslands. Weed Technol. 10:392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R. A., Rivas-Pantoja, F., and Beran, D. D. 1997. Response of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and associated vegetation to AC 263,222. Orlando, FL. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 80. 158 p.Google Scholar
Masters, R. A., Stougaard, R. N., and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with fall-applied imazapyr, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, R. A., Stritzke, R., and Waller, S. S. 1990. How to Conduct a Prescribed Burn and Prescribed Burning Checklist. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Coop. Ext. Serv. EC 90–121. 13 p.Google Scholar
McNaugton, S. J. 1993. Biodiversity and function of grazed ecosystems. In Schulze, E. D. and Mooney, H. A., eds. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 311–382.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., and Stougaard, R. N. 1994. Imazethapyr absorption and fate in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 42:158–162.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Masters, R. A., Mack Thompson, W., and Stougaard, R. N. 1995. Absorption and fate of imazapyr in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pestic. Sci. 45:325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, L. 1977. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Belmont. CA: Duxbury Press. 733 p.Google Scholar
Raju, M.V.S. 1985. Morphology and anatomy of leafy spurge. In Watson, A. K., ed. Leafy Spurge. Champaign, IL. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Monogr. 3. pp. 26–41.Google Scholar
Rees, N. E., Quimby, P. C., Piper, G. L., Coombs, E. M., Turner, C. E., Spencer, N. R., and Knutson, L. V. 1996. Biological Control of Weeds in the West. Bozeman, MT: West. Soc. Weed Sci. Color World Printers. 338 p.Google Scholar
Rivas-Pantoja, F., Masters, R. A., and Beran, D. D. 1997. Influence of planting date and herbicides on native tallgrass establishment. Rapid City, SD. Soc. Range Manage. Abstr. Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Selleck, G. W., Coupland, R. T., and Frankton, C. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecol. Monogr. 32:1–29.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Masters, R. A., and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 8:494–498.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996a. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D, and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 44:469–475.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996b. Absorption and fate of imazameth in leafy spurge. Albuquerque, NM. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Abstr. 65. 173 p.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, K. P. 1987. Seeding rates for establishing big bluestem and switchgrass with preemergence atrazine applications. Agron. J. 79:509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. K. 1985. Introduction—the leafy spurge problem. In Watson, A. K., ed. Leafy Spurge. Champaign, IL. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Monogr. 3. pp. 1–7.Google Scholar