Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:34:33.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Euphorbia esula: perceptions by ranchers and land managers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Randall S. Sell ,
Dean A. Bangsund  and
F. Larry Leistritz
Dean A. Bangsund
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo ND 58105
F. Larry Leistritz
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Euphorbia esula is an exotic perennial weed that is estimated to infest 650,000 ha in North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. The estimated annual economic effect of E. esula infestations in the four-state area is about $130 million. We present the results of a survey of ranchers, local decision makers, and public land managers of grazing and nongrazing property from a five-county area in North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. A total of 565 ranchers, local decision makers, and public land managers were surveyed, which resulted in 267 completed questionnaires. The main objective of the survey was to evaluate respondent's perspectives of managerial, institutional, and social factors that may affect the rate and extent of implementation of various E. esula control strategies. The reasons for not using the various E. esula controls generally fell into environmental, financial, and educational categories. In many cases, little can be done to remove environmental constraints; however, financial constraints may be addressed through cost-share programs either offered locally or through state agencies. The other main reason for not using some controls was a lack of knowledge to work with various controls (e.g., grazing and biological controls). These obstacles could be addressed with workshops, demonstrations, or educational bulletins. These educational tools could be provided by universities or governmental agencies, as respondents indicated this was their choice for information dissemination. Disagreements among the survey groups were not substantial, and many share similar concerns in controlling the weed.

Keywords

Leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. EPHESEuphorbia esulaleafy spurgeEPHESweed managementrancher opinionpublic land manager opinion
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 6 , December 1999 , pp. 740 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Bangsund, D. A. and Leistritz, F. L. 1997. Predicted Future Economic Impacts of Biological Control of Leafy Spurge in the Upper Midwest. Agricultural Economics Rep. No. 382. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Department of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
Bangsund, D. A., Baltezore, J. F., Leitch, J. A., and Leistritz, F. L. 1993. Economic Impact of Leafy Spurge on Wildland in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Agricultural Economics Rep. No. 304. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Department of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
Bureau of Census. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture: North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Leitch, J. A., Bangsund, D. A., and Leistritz, F. L. 1994. Economic Effect of Leafy Spurge in the Upper Great Plains: Methods, Models, Results. Agricultural Economics Rep. No. 316. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Department of Agricultural Economics.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1994. A decade of herbicide treatments controlled leafy spurge. North Dakota Farm Res. 50:9–12.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Zollinger, R. K. 1995. Integrated Management of Leafy Spurge. Extension Publication W-866. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G., Sedivec, K. K., and Kirby, D. R. 1997. Leafy spurge control with angora goats and herbicides. J. Range Manage. 50:123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messersmith, C. G. 1989. Leafy spurge control: reflections on 17 years of research. Pages in Nowierski, R. M., ed., Proc. 1989 Leafy Spurge Symposium. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar