Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-tldsr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-03T12:59:34.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Change in Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Density and Soil Seedbank Composition 10 Years following Release of Aphthona spp. Biological Control Agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cassandra M. Setter  and
Rodney G. Lym
Cassandra M. Setter
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
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Rod.Lym@ndsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) were released in the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) in western North Dakota in 1999 to control leafy spurge. The changes in leafy spurge density and soil seedbank composition were evaluated on two ecological sites 10 yr (2009) after Aphthona spp. release to monitor the effectiveness of the insects on weed control and the associated changes in plant communities. In 2009, leafy spurge stem density averaged 2 and 9 stems m−2 (0.19 to 0.84 ft−2) in the loamy overflow and loamy sites, respectively, compared with 110 and 78 stems m−2, respectively, in 1999. Leafy spurge constituted nearly 67% of the loamy overflow seedbank in 1999, compared with 2% in 2009. In the loamy seedbank, the weed represented nearly 70% in 1999, compared with approximately 15% in 2009. As leafy spurge abundance was reduced, native species richness and seed count increased 10 yr after Aphthona spp. release. Late seral species represented 17% of the loamy overflow seedbank in 2009, an increase from 5% in 1999. However, Kentucky bluegrass, a nontarget weedy species, increased more than 250% in the loamy overflow seedbank. Late seral species were 38% of the loamy seedbank in 2009, compared with 13% in 1999. The number of native species increased from 31 in 1999 to 39 in 2009 in the loamy overflow seedbank, but only changed from 32 to 34 species in the loamy site during the same period. The reestablishment of native species has been slow, but seedbank analysis indicates the number and type of species found before the leafy spurge infestation have increased. Planting native species in selected areas may have reduced the lag time in these species return to the seedbank and reduced invasion from other nondesirable species, such as Kentucky bluegrass.

Keywords

Leafy spurge flea beetle, Aphthona spp.Kentucky bluegrass, Poa pratensis L.leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. EPHESBiological controlinvasive speciesleafy spurge flea beetlerevegetation

Information

Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 147 - 160
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Current address: Natural Resources Conservation Service, 51 North 1st St, Ellendale, ND 58436

References

Literature Cited

Bush, R. T., Seastedt, T. R., and Bucker, D. 2007. Plant community response to the decline of diffuse knapweed in a Colorado grassland. Ecol. Restor. 25 :169–174.Google Scholar
Butler, J. L. and Wacker, S. D. 2010. Lack of native vegetation recovery following biological control of leafy spurge. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 63 :553–563.Google Scholar
Butler, J. L., Parker, M. S., and Murphy, J. T. 2006. Efficacy of flea beetle control of leafy spurge in Montana and South Dakota. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 59 :453–461.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44 :46–51.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 1994. Seed banks: memory in soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75 :11–13.Google Scholar
Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant Competition: An Analysis of Community Functions. Volume 398. Washington, DC : Carnegie Institution of Washington. 340 p.Google Scholar
Cline, D. A. 2002. Evaluation of Biological Agents on Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and the Soil Seedbank Composition in the Little Missouri National Grassland. M.S. thesis. Fargo, ND : North Dakota State University. 51 p.Google Scholar
Cline, D., Juricek, C., Lym, R. G., and Kirby, D. R. 2008. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with Aphthona spp. affects seedbank composition and native grass establishment. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1 :120–132.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.Google Scholar
Hopkins, R. B., Cassel, J. F., and Bjugstad, A. J. 1986. Relationships between breeding birds and vegetation in four woodland types of the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Fort Collins, CO : Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-270. Pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Julien, M. H., and Griffiths, M. W., 1999. editors. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and their Target Weeds. 4th ed. New York : CABI. 223 p.Google Scholar
Juricek, C. J. 2006. Integrated Pest Management and Vegetation Impact Using Aphthona spp. for Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) Control. M.S. thesis. Fargo, ND : North Dakota State University. 78 p.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 Manag. 53 :305–308.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
Lesica, P. and Hanna, D. 2009. Effect of biological control on leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and diversity of associated grasslands over 14 years. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2 :151–157.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated pest management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technol. 12 :367–373.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Carlson, R. B. 2002. Effect of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) genotype on feeding damage and reproduction of Aphthona spp.:. implications for biological control. Biol. Control 23 :127–133.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Nelson, J. A. 2002. Integration of Aphthona spp. flea beetles and herbicides for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control. Weed Sci. 50 :812–819.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
McNaughton, S. J. 1977. Diversity and stability of ecological communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in ecology. Am. Nat. 111 :512–515.Google Scholar
Mico, M. A. and Shay, J. M. 2002. Effect of flea beetles (Aphthona nigriscutis) on prairie invaded by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) in Manitoba. Gt. Plains Res. 12 :167–184.Google Scholar
Naeem, S. L., Thompson, J., Lawler, S. P., Lawton, J. H., and Woodfin, R. M. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368 :734–737.Google Scholar
[NDAWN] North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network. 2011. Monthly Data Table. http://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/monthly-table-form.html. Accessed: October 3, 2011.Google Scholar
[NDIC-OGD] North Dakota Industrial Commission—Oil and Gas Division. 2011. North Dakota Historical Monthly Oil Production. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/stateoilchart.pdf. Accessed: August 30, 2011.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/BRB/ITR-2001-0001. 32 p.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 Manag. 51 :55–62.Google Scholar
Stephens, A. E. A., Krannitz, P. G., and Myers, J. H. 2009. Plant community changes after the reduction of an invasive rangeland weed, diffuse Knapweed, Centaurea diffusa . Biol. Control. 51 :140–146.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Hatch, S. L., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. North American Wildland Plants: A Field Guide. Lincoln, NE : University of Nebraska Press. 507 p.Google Scholar
Ter Heerdt, G.N.J., Verweij, G. L., Bekker, R. M., and Bakker, J. P. 1996. An improved method for seedbank 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.Google Scholar
Tilman, G. D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78 :81–92.Google Scholar
Tilman, G. D. and Downing, J. A. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367 :363–375.Google Scholar
Tilman, G. D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379 :718–720.Google Scholar
Tracy, B. F. and Sanderson, M. A. 2004. Relationships between forage plant diversity and weed invasion in pasture communities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 102 :175–183.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. Plant Fact Sheet: Kentucky Bluegrass, Poa pratensis L. http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_popr.pdf. Accessed: October 3, 2011.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Plant Guide: Kentucky Bluegrass, Poa pratensis L. http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_popr.pdf. Accessed: October 3, 2011.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Electronic Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTG). http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/. Accessed: February 11, 2010.Google Scholar
[USDC-NOAA-NRCDC] United States Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—National Climatic Data Center. 1949–2010. Climatological Data North Dakota. http://www.rcc-acis.org/. Accessed: November 9, 2011.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 p.Google Scholar