More info for the terms: cover, fire management, invasive species, natural, nonnative species, prescribed fire, rhizome
Although rarely quantified, the most common impacts described for cypress spurge infestations are reduced abundance of desired vegetation and reduced cattle-grazing or hay-production capacity. Cypress spurge produces a milky latex that can cause dermatitis or skin blistering in humans and is "intensely irritating" to the eyes ([26,42] reviews by [5,31]). Mechanical and physical removal methods may require protective clothing and eyeware. The negative impacts from sterile cypress spurge stands are likely less than those from fertile populations, which have a greater capacity for dispersal (see Seed production, Seed dispersal, and Vegetative regeneration) ([20,82] review and original research by [95]).
The current and potential negative impacts described for cypress spurge are variable. This variability may be related to the study area, climatic conditions, and/or fertility of the cypress spurge type. Using a model that incorporated the climatic ranges, biological traits, and habitat preferences of cypress spurge, researchers rated cypress spurge as a "high risk" for establishment and proliferation in Riding Mountain National Park, Quebec [77]. In a survey of plant and natural area experts in Wisconsin, cypress spurge ranked 36th out of 66 nonnative invasive plants evaluated for their negative impacts on native plant communities [85]. As of 2004, the Forest Service's Eastern Region indicated that cypress spurge was typically restricted to disturbed sites and not especially invasive in undisturbed natural habitats [107].
Cypress spurge can reduce native vegetation and reduce the cattle-grazing and grain-growing value of an area [42]. Some report that even in poor conditions cypress spurge can "overwhelm every plant growing near it" (Rhode Island Cooperative Extension document by [100]). In the 1940s, farmers gave up dairy farming in areas of Herkimer County, New York, because cypress spurge-infested pastures required farmers to purchase feed from other areas and made dairy farms uneconomical [70]. Cypress spurge seed is difficult to separate from grain, so the fertile cypress spurge type is problematic in grain-production areas [100].
Fertile cypress spurge stands that spread vigorously by seeds, roots, and rhizomes are likely to negatively impact invaded communities most. In Shelburne, New Hampshire, 2 small seed-producing cypress spurge patches spread "rapidly though sparsely" to cover 20 acres (8 ha) in a period of 2 to 3 years. Local residents were "astonished to see how (cypress spurge) had invaded a new territory and obtained so strong a footing in so short a time" [19]. When this area was visited 3 growing seasons later, cypress spurge had "flourished inordinately" and "fresh plants appear(ed) many rods from established areas" [20]. In contrast to the rapid spread described for fertile cypress spurge, sterile cypress spurge populations in eastern Canada are minor components of communities that generally lack open colonization sites. Extensive colonies develop only with mechanical breakage of roots and rhizomes (review and original research by [95]).
In some areas, cypress spurge does not appear to be impacting native vegetation. As of 2005 the Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group indicated that evidence was lacking "that (cypress spurge) out-competes other vegetation in minimally managed habitats" [62]. In Ontario's Burnt Lands Nature Reserve, cypress spurge did not appear to impact vegetation and had not expanded its range extensively since it was first reported. Percent canopy closure of cypress spurge did not significantly reduce aboveground vegetation richness, seed bank species richness, or soil nutrient levels. Researchers suggested that the extensive cypress spurge root and rhizome system may have provided a high-moisture resource island for other species (although moisture content was not measured). After this study, researchers concluded that cypress spurge impacts on other vegetation were indeed minor, undetectable at significant levels, or masked by above-average precipitation [86]. Because cypress spurge abundance can be much greater in dry than wet years [42], and experiments revealed that cypress spurge "flourish(ed) in dry conditions", above-average precipitation during the study period may have impacted study findings [86].
Control: The high potential for regrowth from the extensive root and rhizome system of both fertile and sterile types make cypress spurge difficult to control. Persistent seed banks and the potential for long-distance seed dispersal make control of fertile types even more difficult (review by [95]). Prioritization in the control of cypress spurge is important. Seed-producing stands should receive priority, since they have the greatest capacity for spread. Controlling infestations near gravel pits or other operations conducive to spread should receive priority [57]. Seed-producing stands will likely require more vigilant posttreatment monitoring and follow-up treatments than sterile stands. Because of the need for more aggressive treatment and monitoring, treating fertile stands will likely be more costly and time consuming than treating sterile stands [70]. In a Cooperative Extension publication from the University of Rhode Island, where the fertile type dominates, cypress spurge is described as "extremely difficult to eradicate under any circumstances". This publication suggests that the best method to control cypress spurge may be removal of all vegetation with "vigorous, repeated cultivation" and "start(ing) over" [100].
In all cases where invasive species are targeted for control, no matter what method is employed, the potential for other invasive species to fill their void must be considered [9]. In cypress spurge-invaded portions of Ontario's Burnt Lands Nature Reserve, seedlings of St Johnswort, another nonnative invasive herb, dominated emergence from collected soil samples. Other nonnative species also emerged from soil samples, suggesting that different weedy species would occupy areas where cypress spurge was removed [86]. Control of biotic invasions is most effective when it employs a long-term, ecosystem-wide strategy rather than a tactical approach focused on battling individual invaders [60].
Fire: For information on the use of prescribed fire to control cypress spurge, see Fire Management Considerations.
Prevention: Preventing the spread of cypress spurge should involve discouraging its ornamental sale and planting [57] and controlling populations near gravel pits or other potential seed-spreading operations. In Renfrew County, Ontario, cypress spurge seed was spread to new sites through contaminated gravel used in culvert construction and road repair [95].
It is commonly argued that the most cost-efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their establishment and spread by maintaining "healthy" natural communities [60,91] (e.g., avoid road building in wildlands [106]) and by monitoring several times each year [46]. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility is likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invader [44].
Weed prevention and control can be incorporated into many types of management plans, including those for logging and site preparation, grazing allotments, recreation management, research projects, road building and maintenance, and fire management [108]. See the Guide to noxious weed prevention practices [108] for specific guidelines in preventing the spread of weed seeds and propagules under different management conditions.
Cultural control: No information is available on this topic.
Physical or mechanical control: Cypress spurge may be controlled by frequent and repeated hand-pulling or mowing, and cypress spurge does not tolerate prolonged cultivation (review by [95]). In a nursery, fertile cypress spurge types were controlled by monthly hand-pulling for a year [95]. In Norfolk, Maryland, sterile cypress spurge was controlled in a garden by repeated cutting (Ware 1912 cited in [20]). In Nassau County, New York, mowing led to increased cypress spurge cover in a tallgrass prairie. Within 8 years of the last mowing, cypress spurge cover increased by at least 20% on sites mowed 1 to 3 times/year over a 3-year period [47].
Biological control: Since 2002, there have been 7 European insects released in the eastern United States and 10 released in Canada to control cypress spurge. Spurge hawkmoth (Hyles euphorbiae), flea beetle (Apthona spp.), stem- and root-boring beetle (Oberea erthrocephala), and gall midge (Spurgia esulae) populations are established in the eastern United States and Canada (review and original research by [31]).
Although most insects were successful in defoliating or weakening cypress spurge in the laboratory and/or in some release sites, over time researchers learned that biocontrol success can be site specific (review and original research by [31]), and successful control of cypress spurge will likely require a variety of biocontrol insects [42]. During laboratory testing, a single spurge hawkmoth larva consumed 2.7 g of dry cypress spurge [72]. In Chestertown, New York, 180 spurge hawkmoth larvae were released in an area with dense, fertile stands. Within 5 years of release, 1 million larvae occupied 1.5 square miles (4 km²). Cypress spurge was completely defoliated in some areas [5]. Spurge hawkmoths failed to establish in several release sites in Canada, and although successful establishment occurred in a cypress spurge stand in Ontario, it had little impact on the stands [42]. In Rhode Island, excellent cypress spurge control occurred at some flea beetle release sites. At most release sites, several species were released. Within 2 years at some release sites, suppression was "noticeable", flea beetle dispersal was substantial (up to 230 feet (70 m)), and there were patches "nearly free" of cypress spurge. Good control, however, was restricted to open grassland habitats and did not occur in high-moisture and/or shaded habitats (review and original research by [31]). Based on early insect biocontrol failures in Canada, Harris [42] provides information about insect releases, potential reasons for establishment failure, and possible ways to improve success for future releases. Harris concluded that a variety of insects is likely necessary for successful biological control of cypress spurge in its nonnative range, since a single insect is "only able to utilize a small proportion of the total resource", and a complex of insects feeds on cypress spurge in its native range [42].
Biological control of invasive species has a long history that indicates many factors must be considered before using biological controls. Refer to these sources: [110,114] and the Weed control methods handbook [105] for background information and important considerations for developing and implementing biological control programs.
Chemical control: Control of cypress spurge with herbicides has shown variable success, which may be related to the cypress spurge type, application method, and/or timing of posttreatment evaluation. Riley [86] reported that herbicides have little effect on cypress spurge. Others indicate that because of cypress spurge's waxy cuticle layer, a surfactant is required for absorption, and that a combination of herbides may effectively control cypress spurge. For details, see the review by [95]. In nursery trials, nonselective herbicides applied 4 times/year did not control the fertile cypress spurge type (original research by [95]). In Nassau County, New York, 1 to 2 herbicide treatments in 5 years did not control cypress spurge in a tall grassland community. Herbicide treatments paired with fall or spring prescribed fires were also ineffective. Cypress spurge cover increased up to 75% within 6 years of herbicide and burning treatments [47].
While herbicides may be effective in gaining initial control of a new invasion or a severe infestation, they are rarely a complete or long-term solution to weed management [11]. See the Weed control methods handbook [105] for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas anddetailed information on specific chemicals.
Integrated management: No information is available on this topic.