Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Present distribution

Scientific name:	Euphorbia esula L.
Common name(s):	Leafy spurge

This weed is not known to be naturalised in Victoria

Habitat:

Reported in grasslands, woodlands, riparian areas and cropland with reduced tillage practices to elevations including 2560 m (Lesica. & Hanna. 2004, Lym. & Messersmith. 1993 & Pritekel etal 2006).

Potential distribution

Potential distribution produced from CLIMATE modelling refined by applying suitable landuse and vegetation type overlays with CMA boundaries

Map Overlays Used

Land Use:
Broadacre cropping; pasture dryland; pasture irrigation

Broad vegetation types
Coastal scrubs and grassland; coastal grassy woodland; inland slopes woodland; sedge rich woodland; montane dry woodland; sub-alpine woodland; grassland; plains grassy woodland; valley grassy forest; herb-rich woodland; sub-alpine grassy woodland; montane grassy woodland; riverine grassy woodland; riparian forest; rainshadow woodland; mallee woodland; wimmera / mallee woodland

Colours indicate possibility of Euphorbia esula infesting these areas.

In the non-coloured areas the plant is unlikely to establish as the climate, soil or landuse is not presently suitable.

map showing the potential distribution of leafy spurg

Red= Very high	Orange = Medium
Yellow = High	Green = Likely

Impact

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Social
1. Restrict human access?	Herb less than 1 m tall, however described as having highly irritant, carcinogenic, tumour-promoting diterpenoids (Gunther etal 1998). Therefore some nuisance value to the individual.	ml	mh
2. Reduce tourism?	No impact to tourism reported.	l	m
3. Injurious to people?	Described as able to produce highly irritant, carcinogenic, tumour-promoting diterpenoids (Gunther etal 1998).	h	h
4. Damage to cultural sites?	No such impacts reported.	l	m
Abiotic
5. Impact flow?	Terrestrial species	l	m
6. Impact water quality?	Terrestrial species	l	m
7. Increase soil erosion?	Highly developed root system (Lym 2005). Such an attribute likely to reduce erosion.	l	mh
8. Reduce biomass?	Much of above ground material may die-back each year (Chao etal 2006). May show a biomass increase in comparison to pasture due to grazing animals avoidance (Halaweish etal 2002).	ml	m
9. Change fire regime?	Tolerant of fire. As able to grow back from root system (Lym 2005). However no correlation with a specific fire regime reported.	l	m
Community Habitat
10. Impact on composition (a) high value EVC	EVC= Creekline Grassy Woodland (E); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Goldfields; H CLIMATE potential. Can become dominant within grass/herb layer suppressing and displacing native species.	mh	mh
(b) medium value EVC	EVC= Hills Herb-rich Woodland (D); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Goldfields; H CLIMATE potential. Can become dominant within grass/herb layer suppressing and displacing native species.	mh	mh
(c) low value EVC	EVC= Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland (LC); CMA= Wimmera; Bioreg= Greater Grampians; H CLIMATE potential. Can become dominant within grass/herb layer suppressing and displacing native species.	mh	mh
11. Impact on structure?	Can become dominant within grass/herb layer (Caesar, Campobasso & Terragitti 1999).	mh	mh
12. Effect on threatened flora?	Found to reduce species richness by an average of 51% (Butler & Cogan 2004). Found to reduce pollination rates of native species (Larson, Royer & Royer 2006).	mh	m
Fauna
13. Effect on threatened fauna?	Presence of diterpenes restricts herbivory to certain species including goats and sheep and excluding cattle and rats (Halaweish etal 2002 and Halaweish, Kronberg & Rice 2003).	mh	m
14. Effect on non-threatened fauna?	Presence of diterpenes restricts herbivory to certain species including goats and sheep and excluding cattle and rats (Halaweish etal 2002 and Halaweish, Kronberg & Rice 2003).	mh	mh
15. Benefits fauna?	Produces a lot of pollen and nectar, visited by a variety of insect species (Larson, Royer & Royer 2006).	ml	mh
16. Injurious to fauna?	Produces diterpenes which are highly toxic to certain species (Halaweish etal 2002 and Halaweish, Kronberg & Rice 2003).	h	h
Pest Animal
17. Food source to pests?	Can be eaten by goats, and visited by bees (Halaweish, Kronberg & Rice 2003 and Larson, Royer & Royer 2006).	ml	h
18. Provides harbor?	Not reported to any more than another herbaceous species.	ml	ml
Agriculture
19. Impact yield?	Where it is estimated to infest 1.6millon acres (Bangsund., Leistritz. & Leitch. 1999), Leafy spurge is estimated to have an annual economic impact of $130 million (Foley 2004).	h	h
20. Impact quality?	Can cause illness and death of cattle (Halaweish, Kronberg & Rice 2003).	mh	mh
21. Affect land value?	Reduces carrying capacity both due to toxicity and avoidance and replacement of more palatable species (Caesar, Campobasso & Terragitti 1999).	h	h
22. Change land use?	May cause a change from cattle to sheep or goats.	mh	m
23. Increase harvest costs?	Restricting the movement of cattle into infested area to prevent illness.	mh	m
24. Disease host/vector?	Can be an alternate host to Fusarium (Caesar, Campobasso & Terragitti 1999).	h	h

Invasive

QUESTION	COMMENTS	RATING	CONFIDENCE
Establishment
1. Germination requirements?	Due to the presence of a seed coat a dormancy needs to be broken, with the highest germination rates occur with warm moist conditions (Foley 2004).	mh	mh
2. Establishment requirements?	Reported established in dense colonies in grassland, woodland and riparian areas (Lesica. & Hanna. 2004).	mh	h
3. How much disturbance is required?	Reported established in dense colonies in grassland, woodland and riparian areas (Lesica. & Hanna. 2004).	mh	h
Growth/Competitive
4. Life form?	Perennial herb (Foley 2004).	l	h
5. Allelopathic properties?	Displays minor allelopathic properties (Steenhagen. & Zimdahl. 1979).	ml	h
6. Tolerates herb pressure?	Avoided by cattle and rodents, sheep and goats more likely to consume it, however at high intake levels still cause illness (Halaweish etal 2002). Can be reduced through grazing pressure but will regrow from roots when grazing stops (Lym 2005). A number of bio-control insect species have been released in North America (Bangsund., Leistritz. & Leitch. 1999).	mh	h
7. Normal growth rate?	Growth rate not specified however it is a competitive species able to form dense colonies (Lesica. & Hanna. 2004). Competitive advantage may be to mainly due to grazing avoidance, however presumed equal growth rate of same life form.	mh	m
8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc?	Tolerant of fire, trailed as a control option, shoots regrew from root system (Lym 2005). Frost Tolerant; above ground shoots will be killed by frost, can regrow from dormant root buds (Chao etal 2006). Occurs in rangeland, presumed drought tolerance.	mh	mh
Reproduction
9. Reproductive system	Capable of producing seed and vegetative reproduction through adventitious vegetative buds (Foley 2004).	h	h
10. Number of propagules produced?	Each shoot may produce 30-150 seeds (Foley 2004).	ml	h
11. Propagule longevity?	Seeds reported to remain viable for up to 8 years (Foley 2004).	ml	h
12. Reproductive period?	Described as forming dense stands , perennial nature maintained through aggressive vegetative growth (Chao etal 2006). Apparent longevity if not literally, with possible monocultures.	h	mh
13. Time to reproductive maturity?	Vegetative buds form on shoots within 2 weeks of germination (Foley 2004).	h	h
Dispersal
14. Number of mechanisms?	Seeds are forcibly ejected from the seed capsules when ripened. Animals (both internally and externally), birds and flowing water may also spread seed (Foley 2004).	h	h
15. How far do they disperse?	Large ruminants and birds can move many kilometres before depositing seeds. Also seeds have been found to be dispersed many kilometres by flowing water.	h	m

References

Bangsund. D.A., Leistritz. F.L. & Leitch. J.A. (1999) Assessing economic impacts of biological control of weeds: The case of leafy spurge in northern Great Plains of the United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 56: 35-43.

Butler. J.L & Cogan. D.R. (2004) Leafy spurge effects on patterns of plant species richness. Journal of range management. 57: 305-311.

Caesar. A.J., Campobasso. G. & Terragitti. G. (1999) Effects of European and U.S. strains of Fusarium spp. Pathogenic to Leafy Spurge on North America Grasses and Cultivated Species. Biological Control. 15: 130-136.

Chao. W.S., Serpe. M.D., Anderson. J.V., Gesch. J.V. & Horvath. D.P. (2006) Sugars, hormones, and environmental affect of the dormancy status in underground adventitious buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Science. 54. 59-68.

Foley. M.E. (2004) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) seed dormancy. Weed Science. 52: 74-77

Gunther. G., Hohmann. J., Vasas. A., Mathe. I., Dombi. G. & Jerkovich. G. (1998) Jatrophane diterpenoids from Euphorbia esula. Phytochemistry. 47: 1309-1313.

Halaweish. F.T., Kronberg. S., Hubert. M.B & Rice. J.A. (2002) Toxic and aversive diterpenes of Euporbia esula. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 28: 1599-1611.

Halaweish. F.T., Kronberg. S. & Rice. J.A. (2003) Rodent and ruminant ingestive response to flavonoids in Euphorbia esula. Journal of chemical Ecology. 29: 1073-1082.

Larson. D.L., Royer. R.A. & Royer. M.R. (2006) Insect visitation and pollen deposition in an invaded prairie plant community. Biologcial Conservation. 130: 148-159.

Lesica. P. & Hanna. D. (2004) Indirect effects of Biological control on plant diversity vary across sites in Montana Grasslands. Conservation Biology. 18: 444-454.

Lym. R.G (2005) Integration of biological control agents with other weeds management technologies: Successes from the leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) IPM program. Biological Control. 35:366-375

Olson. B.E., Wallander. R.T., Thomas. V.M. & Kott. R.W. (1996) Effect of previous experience on sheep grazing leafy spurge. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 50: 161-176.

Olson. B.E., Wallander. R.T. & Kott. R.W. (1997) Recovery of leafy spurge seed from sheep Journal of Range Management. 50: 10-15

Pritekel. C., Whittemore-Olsen. A., Snow. N. & Moore. J.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: 132-141.

Steenhagen. D.A. & Zimdahl. R.L. (1979) Allelopathy of Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Science. 27: 1-3.

Global present distribution data references

Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2006. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization] viewed 26 Sep 2006, http://www.calflora.org/ .

Den virtuella floran 2006, Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, viewed 26 Sep 2006, http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 2006, Global biodiversity information facility: Prototype data portal, viewed 26 Sep 2006, http://www.gbif.org/

Olson. B.E., Wallander. R.T., Thomas. V.M. & Kott. R.W. (1996) Effect of previous experience on sheep grazing leafy spurge. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 50: 161-176.

Pritekel. C., Whittemore-Olsen. A., Snow. N. & Moore. J.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: 132-141.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment?
If so, we would value your contribution. Click on the link to go to the feedback form.

Page top