Global Invasive Species Database 100 of the worst Donations home
Standard Search Standard Search Taxonomic Search   Index Search

   Euphorbia esula (herb)     
Ecology Distribution Management
Info 		Impact
Info 		References
and Links 		Contacts


         Management Information

    Physical: Hand-pulling and cutting are ineffective and could actually increase the spread.

    Chemical: Leafy spurge is difficult to eradicate with herbicides alone, but top growth control and a gradual decrease in the root system are possible with a persistent management program. Herbicides are used in combination with rotational grazing programs (sheep and goats), biological control insects, and with cultivation or reseeding of competitive grass species. Use of herbicides on a large scale is not cost-effective and generally reduces desirable forbs and shrubs.

    Biological: Biological control with insects has been very successful in nearly all habitats leafy spurge is found except in sandy soils and near rivers and streams that seasonally flood. Mixed populations of the flea beetles Aphthona czwalinae Weise and Aphthona lacertosa Rosenhauer are extremely effective and reduced leafy spurge density by over 95% within four years of release (Lym & Nelson, 2000). A. lacertosa has been the most successful agent in a variety of environments, but A. nigriscutis and A. cyparissiae have also been widely distributed and have become established in North America.

    The leafy spurge gall midge (Spurgia esulae Gagnè) causes stem tip galls on leafy spurge and is the only mult-generational biological control insect introduced for this weed. Since the gall midge only prevents seed-set, established infestations are not reduced. However, this insect will establish in areas Aphthona spp. will not such as shaded woodlands and seasonally wet meadows.

    Potential microbial biological control agents have been extensively researched but have not yet been successfully introduced for control of leafy spurge.

    Integrated management: A. czwalinae and A. lacertosa combined with a fall-applied treatment of herbicides such as picloram plus 2,4-D or imapzpic reduced leafy spurge density 3 to 5 years earlier than when either method was used alone and once reduced, the Aphthona flea beetles maintained acceptable control for at least 7 yr. Spring-applied herbicides eliminated the adult food source and negatively affected the flea beetle establishment, but fall-applied treatments did not reduce the flea beetle establishment or its reproduction (Lym & Nelson, 2002). Also, incorporation of Aphthona spp. with sheep or goat grazing has resulted in a larger decline in leafy spurge production than insects alone (Lym, 2005).    



         Location Specific Management Information
    Alaska
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Alaska.
    Alberta
    Mixed populations of biological control species Aphthona lacertosa and Aphthona czwaline, flea beetles, were released in over 50 locations in Alberta, Canada to control Euphorbia esula in 1997. Population reductions of E. esula were observed in the following years in which leafy spurge reduction corresponded with locations of high beetle densities (Aphthona sp.) indicating it as a useful means of control (Kalischuk et al, 2004).
    Arizona
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Prohibited Noxious Weed' in Arizona.
    Big Horn
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed'.
    Information from Fremont County Wyoming states that Aphthona flea beetles used in the bio-control of leafy spurge have reduced it to less than 5% ground cover in many areas (Baker, J. pers.comm., May 2004).
    California
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in California. One infestation of leafy spurge has been eradicated, and another is the subject of an ongoing eradication programme.
    A study during the period 1972-2000, by the California Department of Food and Agriculture on eradication targeted 18 species and 53 separate infestations. The results demonstarted that professional eradication of exotic weed infestations smaller than one hectare is usually possible. In addition, about 1/3 of infestations between 1 ha and 100 ha and 1/4 of infestations between 101 and 1000 ha were eradicated. Out of the two infestations of leafy spurge, one was eradicated and the eradication process was ongoing in case of the other. The results also indicated that costs of eradication projects increased dramatically. It was concluded that: the cost of eradicating infestations larger than 1000 ha was very high; that early detection of the presence of an invasive taxon can make the difference between being able to employ offensive strategies (eradication), and the necessity of retreating to a defensive strategy that usually means an infinite financial commitment; and, that if an exotic weed is already widespread, species-specific biological control may be the only long-term effective method able to suppress its abundance over large areas (Rejmanek and Pitcairn, 2002).
    Colorado
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Colorado.
    Connecticut
    Euphorbia esula is listed as an 'Invasive, banned' weed in Connecticut.
    Hawaii
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Hawaii.
    Idaho
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious weed' in Idaho.
    Iowa
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Primary Noxious Weed' in Iowa.
    Kansas
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Kansas.
    Massachusetts
    Euphorbia esula is a 'Prohibited' weed in Massachusetts.
    Minnesota
    Euphorbia esula is a 'Prohibited noxious weed' in Minnesota.
    Montana
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Category 1 noxious weed' in Montana.
    Nebraska
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious weed' in Nebraska.
    Nevada
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious weed' in Nevada.
    New Mexico
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Class A Noxious Weed' in New Mexico.
    North Dakota
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in North Dakota.
    An integrated pest management program targeting E. esula in Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP), North Dakota includes the combined use of herbicides and biocontrol Aphthona spp., or flea beetles. TRNP, a large native-dominated mixed grass prairie in western North Dakota, USA, is home to a large infestation of leafy spurge. A 1993 estimate from aerial photography indicated 1300 ha of leafy spurge in the 18,600 ha South Unit of the park. Certain vulnerable habitats, such as the cottonwood-Rocky Mountain juniper communities of the riparian zone, have suffered almost complete invasion. The integrated pest management program strategy for leafy spurge at TRNP included the use of several herbicides and biological control agents. Biological control of leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains has been dominated by ,Aphthona spp., especially Aphthona lacertosa and Aphthona nigriscutis. These univoltine specialists were imported from Eurasia in the early 1980s and require leafy spurge to complete their life cycle. Adults feed on leaves and flowers, but damage is believed to be inflicted primarily by larvae, which burrow into roots, possibly disrupting nutrient flow and providing access points for fungal pathogens. Flea beetles were first released at TRNP in 1986, and since then more than 3.8 million flea beetles have been released or redistributed in the South Unit. Flea beetles were first released at TRNP in 1986, and since then more than 3.8 million flea beetles have been released or redistributed in the South Unit. Mixtures of A. lacertosa and A. nigriscutis are effective biocontrol agents in areas similar to TRNP in the northern Great Plains. Herbicides have been used to control leafy spurge at TRNP since 1960, but use increased dramatically in the mid-1990s: since 1994 140–210 ha per year have been treated in the park with more than a dozen different formulations, mostly by aerial applications. Picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid) with 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid] and imazapic {2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methyl-ethyl)-5-oxo-1H- imidazol-2-y]-5-methyl-pyridine carboxylic acid} are the two herbicide formulations most commonly used in the park. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and observational data was used to evaluate components of biocontrols, herbicides, and combinations of both applied to a leafy spurge. The results of this management study, however, indicate the use of the herbicides in addition to flea beetles was inefficient because it hindered the life cycle and effectiveness of Aphthona spp. populations while only offering short lived results in controlling the target. The use of Aphthona alone appears to have been the ideal control method in of leafy spurge in TRNP (Larson et al, 2007).
    Oregon
    Euphorbia esula is a "B" designated Quarantine weed' in Oregon.
    South Dakota
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in South Dakota and is a 'Regulated non-native plant species'.
    Utah
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Utah.
    Washington
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Class B noxious weed' in Washington and is a 'Noxious weed seed and plant quarantine' weed.
    Wisconsin
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Wisconsin.
    Wyoming
    Euphorbia esula is listed as a 'Noxious Weed' in Wyoming.
    E. esula is one of many problematic inavsives in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming requiring management (Oliff et al, 2001).

         Management Resources/Links

    1. Anderson, Gerald L., Prosser, Chad W., Wendel, Lloyd E., Delfosse, Ernest S., Faust, Robert M., 2003. The Ecological Areawide Management (TEAM) of Leafy Spurge program of the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science. 59(6-7). June-July 2003. 609-613.
    2. Anderson, James V., Horvath, David P., Chao, Wun S., Foley, Michael E., Hernandez, Alvaro G., Thimmapuram, Jyothl, Liu, Lie, Gong, George L., Band, Mark, Kim, Ryan, Mikel, Mark A., 2007. Characterization of an EST database for the perennial weed leafy spurge: An important resource for weed biology research. Weed Science. 55(3). MAY-JUN 2007. 193-203
    3. Bangsund, D. A., Leistritz, F. L., Leitch, J. A., 1999. Assessing economic impacts of biological control of weeds: The case of leafy spurge in the northern Great Plains of the United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 56(1). May, 1999. 35-43.
    4. Biesboer, David D., [update by Nancy Eckardt], 1996. Element Stewardship Abstract for Euphorbia esula Leafy Spurge
    6. Caesar, A. J. 2003. Synergistic interaction of soilborne plant pathogens and root-attacking insects in classical biological control of an exotic rangeland weed. Biological Control. 28(1). 144-153.
            Summary: Supplementing flea beetle establishments with plant pathogens, for increased effectiveness in biological control of Leafy spurge.
    7. Caesar, Anthony J., 2006. Uromyces scutellatus as a keystone species affecting Euphorbia spp. in Europe as shown by effects on density in the field. Biocontrol Science & Technology. 16(10). NOV 2006. 1079-1086.
    8. Davies, Kirk W., Sheley, Roger L., 2007. A conceptual framework for preventing the spatial dispersal of invasive plants. Weed Science. 55(2). MAR-APR 2007. 178-184.
    9. DiTomaso, Joseph M., 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Science. 48(2). March-April, 2000. 255-265.
    10. Ferrell, Mark A., Whitson, Thomas D., Koch, David W., Gade, A. E., 1998. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control with several grass species Weed Technology. 12(2). April-June, 1998. 374-380.
    11. Hyder, Ayaz, Leung, Brian, Miao, Zewei., 2008. Integrating Data, Biology, and Decision Models for Invasive Species Management: Application to Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula). Ecology & Society. 13(2). DEC 2008. Article No.: 12.
    12. Jordan, Nicholas R., Larson, Diane L., Huerd, Sheri C., 2008. Soil modification by invasive plants: effects on native and invasive species of mixed-grass prairies. Biological Invasions. 10(2). FEB 2008. 177-190.
    13. Joshi, Ankush., 2008. Integrating flea beetles (Aphthona spp.) with herbicide and grasses for leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) management. Weed Technology. 22(3). JUL-SEP 2008. 523-529.
    14. Kalischuk, A. R., Bourchier, R. S., McClay, A. S.., 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(3). March 2004. 418-426.
    15. Kremer, Robert J., Caesar, Anthony J., Souissi, Thouraya., 2006. Soilborne microorganisms of Euphorbia are potential biological control agents of the invasive weed leafy spurge. Applied Soil Ecology. 32(1). MAY 2006. 27-37.
    16. Larson, Diane L., Grace, James B., Larson, Jennifer L., 2008. Long-term dynamics of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and its biocontrol agent, flea beetles in the genus Aphthona. Biological Control. 47(2). NOV 2008. 250-256.
    17. Larson, Diane L., Grace, James B., Rabie, Paul A., Andersen, Paula., 2007. Short-term disruption of a leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) biocontrol program following herbicide application. Biological Control. 40(1). JAN 2007. 1-8.
    18. Lym, Rodney G., 1998. The biology and integrated management of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) on North Dakota rangeland. Weed Technology. 12(2). April-June, 1998. 367-373.
    19. Lym, Rodney G., 2005. Integration of biological control agents with other weed management technologies: Successes from the leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) IPM program. Biological Control. 35(3, Sp. Iss. SI). DEC 2005. 366-375.
    20. Lym, Rodney G., Deibert, Kenneth J., 2005. Diflufenzopyr influences leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control by herbicides. Weed Technology. 19(2). APR-JUN05. 329-341.
    21. Lym, Rodney G., Nelson, Jeff A., 2000. Biological control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with Aphthona spp. along railroad right-of-ways. Biological control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) with Aphthona spp. along railroad right-of-ways. Weed Technology. 14(3). July-September, 2000. 642-646.
    22. Lym, Rodney G., Nelson, Jeffrey A., 2002. Integration of Aphthona spp. flea beetles and herbicides for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control. Weed Science. 50(6). November-December 2002. 812-819.
    23. Markle, Denise M., Lym, Rodney G. 2001. Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control and herbage production with imazapic. Weed Technology. 15(3). July-September, 2001. 474-480.
    24. Mueller-Schaerer, Heinz, Schaffner, Urs., 2008. Classical biological control: exploiting enemy escape to manage plant invasions. Biological Invasions. 10(6). AUG 2008. 859-874.
    26. Olliff, Tom, Renkin, Roy, McClure, Craig, Miller, Paul, Price, Dave, Reinhart, Dan, Whipple, Jennifer., 2001. Managing a complex exotic vegetation program in Yellowstone National Park. Western North American Naturalist. 61(3). July, 2001. 347-358.
    27. Pritekel, Cynthia, Whittemore-Olson, Amanda, Snow, Neil, Moore, John C.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(1). MAY 2006. 132-141.
    29. Rinella, Matthew J., Luschei, Edward C. 2007. Hierarchical Bayesian methods estimate invasive weed impacts at pertinent spatial scales. Biological Invasions. 9(5). JUL 2007. 545-558.
    30. Rinella, Matthew J., Maxwell, Bruce D., Fay, Peter K., Weaver, Theodore, Sheley, Roger L., 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive-species problem. Ecological Applications. 19(1). JAN 2009. 155-162.
    31. Ringold, Paul L., Magee, Teresa K., Peck, David V., 2008. Twelve invasive plant taxa in US western riparian ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 27(4). DEC 2008. 949-966.
    32. Roehrdanz, R., Olson, D., Fauske, G., Bourchier, R., Cortilet, A., Sears, S., 2009. New DNA markers reveal presence of Aphthona species (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) believed to have failed to establish after release into leafy spurge. Biological Control. 49(1). APR 2009. 1-5.
    33. Scheiman, Daniel M., Bollinger, Eric K., Johnson, Douglas H., 2003. Effects of leafy spurge infestation on grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67(1). January 2003. 115-121.
    34. Scheiman, Daniel M.; Bollinger, Eric K.; Johnson, Douglas H., 2003. Effects of leafy spurge infestation on grassland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67(1). 115-121.
            Summary: Impacts of spurge on grassland bird densities.
    35. Schwab, Lori K., Raghu, S., 2006. Leafy spurge biological control information and photo resource gallery. Australian Journal of Entomology. 45(Part 4). 2006. 345-348.
    36. Scott, Lisa K., 2008. Weeds cross borders project: A Canada-United States collaboration. U S Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR.(694). JUN 2007. 153-155.
    37. Seefeldt, S. S., Taylor, J. B., Van Vleet, S., 2007. Reducing Euphorbia esula with a combination of sheep grazing and imazapic. Journal of Arid Environments. 69(3). MAY 2007. 432-440.
    38. Sell, Randall S., Bangsund, Dean A., Leistritz, F. Larry, 1999. Euphorbia esula: Perceptions by ranchers and land managers. Weed Science. 47(6). Nov.-Dec., 1999. 740-749.
    39. Skinner, Kerri, Smith, Lincoln, Rice, Peter., 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Science. 48(5). September-October, 2000. 640-644.
    40. Taylor, J. Bret, Seefeldt, Steven S., Thelen, Tonya M., 2005. The use of short-duration intensive sheep grazing to increase sheep utilization of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). Journal of Food Agriculture & Environment. 3(2). APR 2005. 323-326.

         Results Page: 1  
ISSG Landcare Research NBII IUCN University of Auckland The Global Invasive Species Database is managed by the Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. It was developed as part of the global initiative on invasive species led by the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) and is supported through partnerships with the National Biological Information Infrastructure, Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research and the University of Auckland. Conditions of use.