Paper · 1999 · Journal of Range Management

Prescribed Fire Effects on Biological Control of Leafy Spurge

David P. Fellows; Wesley E. Newton

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
19
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The flea beetle, Aphthona nigriscutis Foudras, is a potentially useful agent for biological control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) in grasslands devoted to wildlife conservation. However, effects of other grassland management practices on the persistence and dynamics of flea beetle populations are not well understood. We conducted small plot tests to evaluate 1) the effect of prerelease burning on establishment of A. nigriscutis colonies, and 2) the ability of established A. nigriscutis colonies to survive prescribed fire. More colonies established on plots that were burned prior to beetle release (83% establishment) than on unburned plots (37% establishment), possibly due to litter reduction and baring of the soil surface. However, most colonies established with the aid of fire did not survive past the first generation unless the habitat was otherwise suitable for the species, and we conclude that the primary benefit of prerelease burning is increased recruitment of A. nigriscutis during the first few generations. Established colonies were not harmed by burns in October and May. Both spring and fall burns resulted in an increase in leafy spurge stem density during the first growing season, but stem density declined to the preburn level by the second growing season.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Prerelease burning raised flea beetle colony establishment from 37% to 83%.

Taxon
leafy spurgeEuphorbia esulat0
Treatment
burned prior to beetle releasee0
Interactor
beetlee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
colonies establishede0
Direction
Moree0
Value
83% establishmente0
Qualifier
37% establishmente0
Comparator
unburned plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Euphorbia esula
Euphorbia esula · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“More colonies established on plots that were burned prior to beetle release (83% establishment) than on unburned plots (37% establishment)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 535–673 · show in text ↑
t0

“Leafy Spurge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–61 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most fire aided beetle colonies did not persist beyond the first generation unless habitat was suitable.

Taxon
leafy spurgeEuphorbia esulat0
Outcome
colonies established with the aid of fire did not survive past the first generatione0
Qualifier
unless the habitat was otherwise suitable for the speciese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Euphorbia esula
Euphorbia esula · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“most colonies established with the aid of fire did not survive past the first generation unless the habitat was otherwise suitable for the species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–895 · show in text ↑
t0

“Leafy Spurge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Established beetle colonies were unharmed by October and May burns.

Taxon
leafy spurgeEuphorbia esulat0
Treatment
burns in October and Maye0
Outcome
Established coloniese0
Direction
not harmede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Euphorbia esula
Euphorbia esula · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Established colonies were not harmed by burns in October and May”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1101 · show in text ↑
t0

“Leafy Spurge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spring and fall burns increased leafy spurge stem density during the first growing season.

Taxon
leafy spurgeEuphorbia esulae0
Treatment
spring and fall burnse0
Outcome
leafy spurge stem densitye0
Direction
increasee0
Qualifier
during the first growing seasone0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Euphorbia esula
Euphorbia esula · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both spring and fall burns resulted in an increase in leafy spurge stem density during the first growing season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1214 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stem density returned to its preburn level by the second growing season.

Taxon
leafy spurgeEuphorbia esulat0
Outcome
stem densitye0
Direction
declinede0
Qualifier
by the second growing seasone0
Comparator
preburn levele0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Euphorbia esula
Euphorbia esula · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“stem density declined to the preburn level by the second growing season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1220–1291 · show in text ↑
t0

“Leafy Spurge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–61 · show in text ↑

fire · organism · Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.