Cost-Effective Long-Term Leafy Spurge (<i>Euphorbia esula</i>) Control with Herbicides

Lym, Rodney G.

doi:10.1017/s0890037x00026129

Cited by 26 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Glyphosate plus 2,4-D at 0.45 plus 0.7 kg/ha annually applied for 3 years reduced leafy spurge production nearly 90% 1 year after the last application compared to 2,205 kg/ha in the untreated control. Herbage production was similar regardless of herbicide treatment and is often slow to recover when leafy spurge is controlled by herbicides (Lym and Messersmith 1990 production may be due to the deep leafy spurge root system that is still competing for moisture and nutrients even though there may be very little visible topgrowth. The addition of 2,4-D to glyphosate appears to reduce the efficacy of glyphosate on grasses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The auxin herbicide treatments were selected based on cost and efficacy of leafy spurge control as determined from previous research (Lym andMessersmith 1985, Lym andMessersmith 1990), included picloram plus 2,4-D at 0.28 plus 1.1 kg/ha and dicamba at 2.2 kg/ha.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common herbicide treatment for leafy spurge control on large infestations is picloram plus 2,4-D [2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] at 0.3 plus 1.1 kg ae/ha applied during the true-flower growth stage. This treatment controls leafy spurge top-growth in 3 to 5 years (Lym and Messersmith 1990). However, picloram cannot be applied in environmentally sensitive areas such as those with high water tables or those prone to flooding.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D

Lym¹

2000

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D

Lym¹

2000

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cousens 1985;Vila et al 2004), and abundances vary widely from site to site (e.g. Lym and Messersmith 1990;Ortega and Pearson 2005). In addition to weed abundance data, models that predict impact from weed abundance are also needed (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hierarchical Bayesian methods estimate invasive weed impacts at pertinent spatial scales

Rinella

Luschei

2006

Biol Invasions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive weed impact estimates are needed to determine whether or not weeds warrant costly control measures. Typically, land managers seek local weed impact estimates (e.g. ranches, parks) and policy-makers want to know how weeds are impacting entire regions. Our goal was to provide local and regional impact estimates for a ubiquitous invasive weed: leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). The specific impacts we looked at related to desired species biomass production, livestock carrying capacities, and grazing land values. Our basic approach was to use an empirical model that characterizes weed biomass across the landscape in combination with another empirical model that predicts weed impact from weed biomass. Our investigation revealed that, without on-site plant biomass data, site-specific leafy spurge impacts are highly uncertain. Supplementing our general predictive model with small quantities of on-site data increased precision considerably. For the 17-state region we considered, 95% Bayesian credibility intervals indicated leafy spurge reduces cattle carrying capacities by 50-217 thousand animals a year and reduces grazing land values by 8-34 million dollars a year. Additional plant biomass data from randomly selected, leafy spurge-infested sites would shrink these fairly wide intervals.

show abstract

“…Rangeland weed abundances vary dramatically from site to site (e.g., Lym and Messersmith 1990;Ortega and Pearson 2005), and as weed abundance increases, weed impact on desired species becomes more severe (e.g., Cousens 1985;Vila et al 2004). Therefore, site-specific weed impact assessments must account for local weed abundances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Light Attenuation to Estimate Leafy Spurge Impacts on Forage Production

Rinella¹,

Sheley²

2006

REM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rangeland managers often must decide whether to suppress dicotyledonous weed populations with expensive and time-consuming management strategies. Often, the underlying goal of weed suppression efforts is to increase production of native forage plants. Many managers suppress weeds only when they feel the unwanted plants are substantially impacting their forage base. Currently, intuition and guesswork are used to determine whether weed impacts are severe enough to warrant action. We believe scientific impact assessments could be more effective than these casual approaches to decision making. Scientific approaches will necessitate data on weed abundances because the severity of a weed's impact is highly correlated with its abundance. The need for weed abundance data poses major obstacles because gathering these data with readily available techniques is time consuming. Most managers cannot or will not spend a lot of time gathering vegetation data. In this paper, we explore a rapidly measured index (,2 minutes per sample location) that is highly correlated with weed (i.e., leafy spurge Euphorbia esula L.) abundance per unit area. This index is based on the light attenuation leafy spurge causes. After measuring light attenuation in plots planted to leafy spurge and grasses, we developed a probabilistic model that predicts leafy spurge impacts on forage production. Data from experiments where herbicides suppressed leafy spurge provided an opportunity to evaluate prediction accuracy of the model. In each case herbicide experiment data fell within the range of values (i.e., credibility intervals) the model predicted, even though the model development experiments were separated from the herbicide experiments by several hundred kilometers in space and 4 years in time. Therefore, we conclude that the model successfully accounts for spatial and temporal variation. We believe light attenuation could help natural resource managers quickly quantify some kinds of weed impacts. ResumenLos manejadores de pastizales a menudo deben decidir si suprimen o no las poblaciones de malezas dicotiledó neas con estrategias de manejo caras y que consumen mucho tiempo. Frecuentemente, la meta de suprimir las malezas es incrementar la producció n de las plantas forrajeras nativas. Muchos manejadores solo suprimen las malezas cuando sienten que las plantas indeseables está n impactando substancialmente su producció n de forraje. Actualmente, la intuició n y suposiciones son usadas para determinar si los impactos de la maleza son los suficientemente severos o no para justificar la acció n de supresió n. Nosotros creemos que las evaluaciones científicas del impacto de la maleza pueden ser má s efectivas que las estos métodos casuales de toma de decisiones. Los métodos científicos necesitará n datos de la abundancia de la maleza, porque la severidad del impacto de la maleza esta altamente correlacionado con su abundancia. La necesidad de datos de abundancia de la maleza presenta grandes obstá culos porque la recopilació n de estos datos con...

show abstract

Cost-Effective Long-Term Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Control with Herbicides

Cited by 26 publications

References 6 publications

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with glyphosate plus 2,4-D

Hierarchical Bayesian methods estimate invasive weed impacts at pertinent spatial scales

Using Light Attenuation to Estimate Leafy Spurge Impacts on Forage Production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About