Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:03:23.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) Control in Pasture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Gylling  and
W. Eugene Arnold
Steven R. Gylling
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD 57007–1096
W. Eugene Arnold
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD 57007–1096
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide treatments containing the butoxyethanol ester of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid], the dimethylamine salt of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid), the potassium salt of picloram (4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid), and the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] were applied for 6 yr to a pasture in east-central South Dakota containing leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L. ♯ EPHES). Several treatments resulted in leafy spurge control exceeding 90%. Mean herbage dry-weight yield in treated plots was 2340 kg/ha, a 67% increase over untreated plots. Forage yields did not significantly differ among treatments controlling 90% or more leafy spurge. Marginal net return over marginal cost from herbicide treatments ranged from $35 to –$63/ha. Treatments providing satisfactory leafy spurge control with minimum economic risk were annual spring applications of 2,4-D at 1.7 kg ae/ha or dicamba + 2,4-D at 0.6 + 1.1 kg ae/ha and the biannual application of 2,4-D at 0.8 kg ae/ha.

Keywords

Sensitivity analysisdicamba2,4-DpicloramglyphosateEPHES
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 381 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bakke, A. L. 1936. Leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. Iowa Res. Stn. Res. Bull. No. 198:209–245.Google Scholar
2. Derscheid, L. A. and Wrage, L. J. 1976. Leafy spurge. South Dak. Coop. Ext. Serv. FS 449.Google Scholar
3. Dunn, P. H. 1979. The distribution of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and other weed Euphorbia spp. in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:509–516.Google Scholar
4. Hanson, H. C. and Rudd, V. E. 1933. Leafy spurge, life history and habits. North Dak. Agric. Exp. Stn., Fargo. Bull. 266. 24 pp.Google Scholar
5. Lybecker, D. W., King, R. P., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Economic analysis of two weed management systems for two cropping rotations. Weed Sci. 32:90–95.Google Scholar
6. McCarty, M. K. 1979. Yield and quality of two cool-season grasses as affected by selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Morrow, L. A. 1979. Studies on the reproductive biology of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 27:106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Petersen, J. L., Potter, R. L., and Ueckert, D. N. 1983. Evaluation of selected herbicides for manipulating herbaceous rangeland vegetation. Weed Sci. 31:735–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Reece, P. E. and Wilson, R. G. 1983. Effect of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) control on grass herbage. Weed Sci. 31:488–492.Google Scholar
10. Selleck, G. W., Coupland, R. T., and Frankton, C. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecol. Monog. 32:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, T. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar