Home / All Titles / Rangeland Ecology & Management / Sep 2010 / pg(s) 553-563

Rangeland Ecology & Management

Published by: Society for Range Management

« previous article : next article »

Rangeland Ecology & Management 63(5):553-563. 2010
doi: 10.2111/REM-D-09-00075.1

Lack of Native Vegetation Recovery Following Biological Control of Leafy Spurge

Jack L. Butler¹ and Stefanie D. Wacker²

¹Supervisory Ecologist, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest and Grassland Research Laboratory, Rapid City, SD 57702, USA

²Ecologist, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest and Grassland Research Laboratory, Rapid City, SD 57702, USA

This research was funded in part by the US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, TEAM Leafy Spurge Project administered by the Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, Sidney, MT, and the US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by USDA or the authors and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of the other products that also may be suitable.

Correspondence: Jack L. Butler, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest and Grassland Research Laboratory, 8221 S Highway 16, Rapid City, SD 57702, USA. Email: jackbutler@fs.fed.us

Abstract

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) is an aggressive exotic species that has been successfully suppressed in a variety of situations using classical biological control (flea beetles; Aphthona spp.). This 9-yr study investigated patterns of vegetation responses following significant reductions in leafy spurge cover and density by flea beetles in southeastern Montana. We hypothesized that the vegetation following leafy spurge suppression would be dominated by species and plant functional groups able to persist through heavy infestations. Flea beetles were first released in 1998, and by 2006 leafy spurge foliar cover was reduced 80% to 90% compared to 1998 values on both release and nonrelease plots. Although total cover of the resident vegetation, excluding leafy spurge, increased 72% to 88%, relative cover of the functional groups (native forbs, native sedges, native grasses, and non-native species) was similar among years and between release and nonrelease plots. Mean diversity and mean species richness values did not differ among years or between release and nonrelease plots (P < 0.05), but mean diversity on both release and nonrelease plots was significantly less than noninfested plots, although richness was similar (P < 0.05). Indicator species analysis revealed that non-native Poa spp. replaced leafy spurge as the dominant species on release and nonrelease plots. Conversely, noninfested plots contained a variety of native species with high indicator values. Although total abundance of the resident vegetation in 2006 was significantly greater than 1998, plant species composition and relative cover showed little change for the duration of the study. Failure of the native vegetation to recover to a community that approached nearby noninfested conditions may be attributed to a variety of interacting scenarios, some of which may be ameliorated by treating infestations as soon as possible to avoid long-term residual effects.

Resumen

El euforbio de montaña (Euphorbia esula L.) es una especie exótica agresiva que ha sido exitosamente suprimida en un gran variedad de situaciones usando el clásico control biológico (flea beetles; Aphthona spp.). Durante estos 9 años de estudio, investigamos los patrones de la respuesta de la vegetación después de una reducción significativa en la cobertura y densidad del euforbio de montaña mediante el uso de escarabajos en el sureste de Montana. Nuestra hipótesis era que especies y grupos de plantas funcionales capaces de persistir a través de graves infestaciones dominarían la vegetación después de la supresión de euforbio de montaña. Los escarabajos se liberaron por primera vez en 1998 y para el 2006 la cobertura foliar del euforbio de montaña se había reducido en un 80% a 90% comparada con los valores de 1998 en parcelas donde se liberaron y donde no se liberaron los escarabajos. Aunque la cobertura total del la vegetación residente excluyendo euforbio de montaña, incrementó de 72% a 88%, la cobertura relativa de los grupos funcionales (herbáceas nativas, juncias nativas, pastos nativos y especies no nativas) fue similar entre ambos y entre parcelas donde fueron liberadas y donde no fueron liberadas. La media de la diversidad y los valores de la media de la riqueza no fueron diferentes entre años entre parcelas liberadas o no liberadas (P < 0.05), pero la media de la diversidad en ambos parcelas liberadas y no liberadas fue significativamente menor que en parcelas no infestadas, aunque la riqueza fue similar (P < 0.05). Análisis de las especies claves revelaron que especies no nativas Poa spp. reemplazaron euforbio de montaña como la especie dominante en parcelas donde hubo y no hubo liberaciones. Por el contrario parcelas no infectadas contuvieron una variedad de especies nativas con altos valores indicadores. Aunque la abundancia total de la vegetación nativa en 2006 fue significativamente mayor que en el 1998, la composición de las especies de plantas y la cobertura relativa mostraron un ligero cambio durante la duración del estudio. El fracaso de la vegetación nativa para recubrir la comunidad que se acercaba a las inmediaciones de las parcelas no infestadas puede atribuirse a la variedad de interacciones de las circunstancias, algunos de las cuales pueden mejorarse tratando las infestaciones lo antes posible para evitar efectos residuales a largo plazo.

Received: June 8, 2009; Accepted: May 24, 2010

Keywords: biological weed control, Euphorbia esula, exotic invasive, flea beetle, Northern Great Plains, restoration ecology

LITERATURE CITED

Barton, J., S. V. Fowler, A. F. Gianotti, C. J. Winks, M. De Beurs, G. C. Arnold, and G. Forrester. 2007. Successful biological control of mist flower (Ageratina riparia) in New Zealand: agent establishment, impact and benefits to the native flora. Biological Control 40:370–385. CrossRef

Belcher, J. W. and S. D. Wilson. 1989. Leafy spurge and the species composition of a mixed-grass prairie. Journal of Range Management 42:172–175. CrossRef

Blumenthal, D. M., N. R. Jordan, and M. P. Russelle. 2003. Soil carbon addition controls weeds and facilitates prairie restoration. Ecological Applications 13:605–615. CrossRef, CSA

Bush, R., T. Seastedt, and D. Buckner. 2007. Plant community response to the decline of diffuse knapweed in a Colorado grassland. Ecological Restoration 25:169–174. CrossRef

Butler, J. L. and D. R. Cogan. 2004. Leafy spurge effects on patterns of plant species richness. Journal of Range Management 57:305–311. BioOne

Butler, J. L., M. S. Parker, and J. T. Murphy. 2006. Efficacy of flea beetle control of leafy spurge in Montana and South Dakota. Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:453–461. BioOne

Callaway, R. M. and W. M. Ridenour. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:436–443. CrossRef

Carson, W. P., S. M. Hovick, A. J. Baumert, D. E. Bunker, and T. H. Pendergast. 2008. Evaluating the post-release efficacy of invasive plant biocontrol by insects: a comprehensive approach. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 2:77–86. CrossRef

Cherwin, K. L., T. R. Seastedt, and K. N. Suding. 2008. Effects of nutrient manipulations and grass removal on cover, species composition, and invasibility of a novel grassland in Colorado. Restoration Ecology 17:818–826. CrossRef

Cornett, M. W., P. J. Bauman, and D. D. Breyfogle. 2006. Can we control leafy spurge? Adaptive management and the recovery of native vegetation. Ecological Restoration 24:145–150. CrossRef

D'Antonio, C. and L. A. Meyerson. 2002. Exotic plant species as problems and solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restoration Ecology 10:703–713. CrossRef, CSA

Daehler, C. C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien invasive plants: implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 34:183–211. CrossRef

Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33:43–64.

Denslow, J. S. and C. M. D'Antonio. 2005. After biocontrol: assessing indirect effects of insect releases: science and decision making in biological control of weeds: benefits and risks of biological control. Biological Control 35:307–318. CrossRef

Dufrêne, M. and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345–366. CSA

Evans, S. G., A. J. Pelster, W. C. Leininger, and M. J. Trlica. 2004. Seasonal diet selection of cattle grazing a montane riparian community. Journal of Range Management 57:539–545. BioOne

Funk, J. L., E. E. Cleland, K. N. Suding, and E. S. Zavaleta. 2008. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:695–703. CrossRef, PubMed

Hansen, R. W., R. D. Richard, P. E. Parker, and L. E. Wendel. 1997. Distribution of biological control agents of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) in the United States: 1988–1996. Biological Control 10:129–142. CrossRef

Huenneke, L. F., S. P. Hamburg, R. Koide, H. A. Mooney, and P. M. Vitousek. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491. CrossRef, CSA

Huffaker, C. B. and C. E. Kennett. 1959. A ten-year study of vegetational changes associated with biological control of klamath weed. Journal of Range Management 12:69–82. CrossRef

Jordan, N. R., D. L. Larson, and S. C. Huerd. 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions 10:177–190. CrossRef

Joshi, A. 2008. Integrating flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) with herbicide and grasses for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) management. Weed Technology 22:523–529. BioOne

Kalischuk, A. R., R. S. Bourchier, and A. S. McClay. 2004. Post hoc assessment of an operational biocontrol program: efficacy of the flea beetle Aphthona lacertosa rosenhauer (chrysomelidae: coleoptera), an introduced biocontrol agent for leafy spurge. Biological Control 29:418–426. CrossRef

Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant-communities. Journal of Range Management 36:685–691. CrossRef

Kirby, D. R., R. B. Carlson, K. D. Krabbenhoft, D. Mundal, and M. M. Kirby. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge with introduced flea beetles (Aphthona spp.). Journal of Range Management 53:305–308. CrossRef

Kirby, D. R., T. P. Hanson, K. D. Krabbenhoft, and M. M. Kirby. 1997. Effects of simulated defoliation on leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) infested rangeland. Weed Technology 11:586–590.

Larson, D. L., P. J. Anderson, and W. Newton. 2001. Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthropogenic disturbance. Ecological Applications 11:128–141. CrossRef, CSA

Larson, D. L. and J. B. Grace. 2004. Temporal dynamics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and two species of flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) used as biological control agents. Biological Control 29:207–214. CrossRef

Larson, D. L., J. B. Grace, and J. L. Larson. 2008. Long-term dynamics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and its biocontrol agent, flea beetles in the genus Aphthona. Biological Control 47:250–256. CrossRef

Laufmann, J. A. 2006. Biological control affects native vegetation and recovery potential in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota. Fort Collins, CO, USA Colorado State University. 155.

Lesica, P. and D. Hanna. 2004. Indirect effects of biological control on plant diversity vary across sites in Montana grasslands. Conservation Biology 18:444–454. CrossRef

Lym, R. G. 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technology 12:367–373.

Lym, R. G. and D. R. Kirby. 1987. Cattle foraging behavior in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)-infested rangeland. Weed Technology 1:314–318. CSA

Lym, R. G. and C. G. Messersmith. 1985. Leafy spurge control and improved forage production with herbicides. Journal of Range Management 38:386–391. CrossRef

Lym, R. G. and J. A. Nelson. 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with Aphthona spp. along railroad right-of-ways. Weed Technology 14:642–646. BioOne

Lym, R. G. and J. A. Nelson. 2002. Integration of Aphthona spp. flea beetles and herbicides for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control. Weed Science 50:812–819. BioOne

MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1983. Plant community variability on a small area in southeastern Montana. Great Basin Naturalist 43:660–668.

MacDougall, A. S., J. Boucher, R. Turkington, and G. E. Bradfield. 2006. Patterns of plant invasion along an environmental stress gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:47–56. BioOne

Maron, J. L. and M. Marler. 2008. Field-based competitive impacts between invaders and natives at varying resource supply. Journal of Ecology 96:1187–1197. CrossRef

McCune, B. and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, OR, USA MjM Software Design. 300.

McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 2006. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 5.19. Gleneden Beach, OR, USA MjM Software Design.

Mico, M. A. and J. M. Shay. 2002. Effect of flea beetles (Aphthona nigriscutis) on prairie invaded by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) in Manitoba. Great Plains Research 12:167–184. CSA

Mielke Jr, P. and K. Berry. 2001. Permutation methods: a distance function approach. New York, NY, USA Springer-Verlag. 352.

Murphy, S. D., J. Flanagan, K. Noll, D. Wilson, and B. Duncan. 2007. How incomplete exotic species management can make matters worse: experiments in forest restoration in Ontario, Canada. Ecological Restoration 25:85–93. CrossRef

Ortega, Y. K. and D. E. Pearson. 2005. Weak vs. strong invaders of natural plant communities: assessing invasibility and impact. Ecological Applications 15:651–661. CrossRef

Petrondas, D. A. and K. R. Gabriel. 1983. Multiple comparisons by rerandomization tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78:949–957. CrossRef

Price, J. N. and J. W. Morgan. 2007. Vegetation dynamics following resource manipulations in herb-rich woodland. Plant Ecology 188:29–37. CrossRef

Pritekel, C., A. Whittemore-Olson, N. Snow, and J. C. Moore. 2006. Impacts from invasive plant species and their control on the plant community and belowground ecosystem at Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Applied Soil Ecology 32:132–141. CrossRef

Reinhart, K. O. and R. M. Callaway. 2006. Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytologist 170:445–457. CrossRef, PubMed

Rinella, M. J., B. D. Maxwell, P. K. Fay, T. Weaver, and R. L. Sheley. 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecological Applications 19:155–162. CrossRef, PubMed

Samuel, L. W., D. R. Kirby, J. E. Norland, and G. L. Anderson. 2008. Leafy spurge suppression by flea beetles in the Little Missouri drainage basin, USA. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:437–443. BioOne

Selleck, G. W., C. Frankton, and R. T. Coupland. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecological Monographs 32:1–29. CrossRef

Sheley, R. L., T. J. Svejcar, and B. D. Maxwell. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technology 10:766–773.

Steenhagen, D. A. and R. L. Zimdahl. 1979. Allelopathy of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Science 27:1–3.

Symstad, A. J. 2004. Secondary invasion following the reduction of Coronilla varia (crownvetch) in sand prairie. American Midland Naturalist 152:183–189. BioOne, CSA

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service 2005. TEAM Leafy Spurge. Available at: www.team.ars.usda.gov. Accessed 10 April 2009.

[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009. The PLANTS database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov/. Accessed 10 April 2009.

Vanderhorst, J., S. Cooper, and B. Heidel. 1998. Botanical and vegetation survey of Carter County, Montana. Helena, MT, USA Montana Natural Heritage Program. 116.

Vila, M. and J. Weiner. 2004. Are invasive plant species better competitors than native plant species? Evidence from pair-wise experiments. Oikos 105:229–238. CrossRef

Western Regional Climate Center 2009. Western Regional Climate Center. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. Accessed 10 April 2009.