Euphorbia lathyris

Title: Euphorbia lathyris

Scientific Name:

Euphorbia lathyris L.

Common Name:

caper spurge

Image via GBIF

Habitat:

Most commonly reported as a weed of gardens, roadsides, disturbed areas and cultivated land it is also reported to invade riparian vegetation, warm temperate rainforest, coastal vegetation and woodlands (Butcher 1961; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Cooper & Johnson 1984; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988).

Distribution:

Distribution via GBIF

Invasiveness Assessment

ESTABLISHMENT

1. Germination requirements? Can germinate from autumn to early summer with most germinating in spring (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

2. Establishment requirements? Reported to invade warm temperate rainforest (Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992). The species is largely reported in disturbed areas such as gardens and roadsides; it is also however reported to have a preference for riparian areas (Butcher 1961; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). Therefore, the species can establish under shade but may however have a moisture requirement.

3. How much disturbance is required? Commonly reported to occur in waste places and disturbed areas, it is reported to invade riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforest (Butcher 1961; Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988).

GROWTH / COMPETITIVE

4. Life form? Other. The species is a “biennial semi-herbaceous ruderal plant” (Häring & Körner 2004).

5. Allelopathic properties? Unknown; another species of the genus E. esula is reported to display minor allelopathic properties (Steenhagen & Zimdahl 1979).

6. Tolerates herb pressure? While toxic to most species, it is reportedly eaten by goats (Fuller & McClintock 1986; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

7. Normal growth rate? Growth fairly rapid (Bayley 1941). Reported to be a poor competitor against weeds when cultivated when investigated as a potential biomass crop (Garcia-Baudin et al 1985). It is not completely understood why the species was a poor competitor in cultivation however with a report of having rapid growth the species is considered to have a growth rate comparative with most other species of the same life form.

8. Stress tolerance to frost, drought, w/logg, sal. etc? Reported to be tolerant to salinity (Kingsolver 1982). Reported to be tolerant of temperatures of -25ºC (Dave’s Garden 2007). Is not a xerophytic species adapted to arid conditions (Kingsolver 1982). Therefore the species is not considered tolerant of drought. Therefore the species is highly tolerant of one, tolerant of another, susceptible to another and unknown tolerance to fire and waterlogging.

REPRODUCTION

9. Reproductive system? The species reproduces sexually, producing seed (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). The species’ flowers can be self- or crosspollinated (von der Ohe 1991).

10. Number of propagules produced? Each fruit contains three seeds (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). A plant has been observed with more than 30 fruits (Hondelmann & Strauss 1990). Therefore the species is capable of producing more than 50 seeds, but is unlikely to produce more than 1000 seeds.

11. Propagule longevity? Unknown; Seeds can be successfully stored for one year. Mechanical damage (e.g. scarification) to the seed coat can make the seed unviable (Kingsolver 1982).

12. Reproductive period? There is some conflicting evidence on the lifespan of the species. Parsons & Cuthbertson (2001) report that after flowering the plants will die the following autumn or winter. Carr et al (1992) and Spencer (2002) report the species to be perennial. Most however report the species to be an annual or biennial.

13. Time to reproductive maturity? Plants that have germinated in autumn and spring can flower by the summer (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

DISPERSAL

14. Number of mechanisms? The species has an initial explosive release of the seeds which then may be dispersed in water or in mud which is externally transported by animals or on or in vehicles (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

15. How far do they disperse? Unknown.

Impact Assessment

RECREATION

1. Restrict human access? Unknown; The species is reported to occur near waterways and due to its toxic nature could be of high nuisance value to people (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). It is unknown however if the species naturally forms dense enough infestations to become such an issue.

2. Reduce tourism? Unknown; the species toxic nature and occurrence near waterways may have an impact on recreational activities (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). The species may also have some impact on aesthetics as it has been grown as an ornamental and is also considered a garden weed (Conner 1977; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

3. Injurious to people? The species has toxic sap and fruits which can cause irritation and dermatitis to the skin and eyes and severe gastro-enteritis and vomiting if ingested and the fruits can be mistaken for capers (Shepherd 2004). The toxins of the plant can also be pasted into goat’s milk if grazed (McBarron 1977). After contact with the sap a two and a half year old girl suffered from blistering and the lesion persisted for more than 5 months (Hausen 2005). Can cause death (Bayley 1941). Therefore the species is considered extremely toxic.

4. Damage to cultural sites? The species may have some impact on aesthetics as it has been grown as an ornamental and is also considered a garden weed (Conner 1977; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

ABIOTIC

5. Impact flow? Terrestrial species. A herb species not reported to grow in flowing water E. lathyris is unlikely to have any significant impact upon water flow.

6. Impact water quality? Extracts from dried plant material of this species was found to be highly toxic to amphibians and has also been reported to be toxic to fish (Paulov 1993). The species is reported to occur close to rivers and streams (Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001). Therefore the species is considered to have the potential to have a significant impact on water quality if fish and frog kills occur, eutrophication may result.

7. Increase soil erosion? Parsons & Cuthbertson (2001) report the species to be an annual to biennial species with a root system comprised of a taproot and fibrous laterals. Therefore the species is unlikely to contribute to decreasing or increasing the probability of soil erosion.

8. Reduce biomass? As a reasonably large herb species E. lathyrisis not reported to cause major displacement of other species and is therefore unlikely to reduce biomass. Invasion by this species is likely to result in direct replacement of biomass.

9. Change fire regime? Unknown.

COMMUNITY HABITAT

10(a) Impact on composition of high value EVC? EVC= Riverine Grassy Woodland (V); CMA= Goulburn Broken; Bioreg= Murray Fans; VH CLIMATE potential. There is little evidence reported on this species impact in natural systems. In a study to determine the species potential as a biomass crop, it was determined to be a poor competitor with other weeds (Garcia-Baudin et al 1985). Therefore at the most, the species is considered to have the potential to cause some minor displacement the herb layer and lower strata,

10(b) Impact on medium value EVC? EVC= Grassy Riverine Forest (D); CMA= North Central; Bioreg= Murray Fans; VH CLIMATE potential. There is little evidence reported on this species impact in natural systems. In a study to determine the species potential as a biomass crop, it was determined to be a poor competitor with other weeds (Garcia-Baudin et al 1985). Therefore at the most, the species is considered to have the potential to cause some minor displacement to the herb layer and lower strata.

10(c) Impact on low value EVC? EVC= Riparian Forest (LC); CMA= Corangamite; Bioreg= Otway Ranges; VH CLIMATE potential. There is little evidence reported on this species impact in natural systems. In a study to determine the species potential as a biomass crop, it was determined to be a poor competitor with other weeds (Garcia-Baudin et al 1985). Therefore at the most, the species is considered to have the potential to cause some minor displacement to the herb layer and lower strata.

11. Impact on structure? The species is reported to invade riparian vegetation and warm temperate rainforest (Carr, Yugovic & Robinson 1992). There is not however evidence of the species having a significant effect on the flora of invaded ecosystems. In a study to determine the species potential as a biomass crop, it was determined to be a poor competitor with other weeds (Garcia-Baudin et al 1985). Therefore at the most, the species is considered to have the potential to cause some minor displacement within the lower strata, which would be relatively insignificant.

12. Effect on threatened flora? Unknown.

FAUNA

13. Effect on threatened fauna? Extracts from dried plant material of this species was found to be highly toxic to amphibians, at higher doses death can occur but even at lower concentrations the growth and development of frogs can be inhibited (Paulov 1993). This may not permanently alter habitat but could be seen to cause a reduction in habitat as a proportion becomes toxic and a reduction of individuals could occur from lethal levels of the toxin or from the inhibition of metamorphosis. There are a number of VROT frog species that this plant may impact upon, however it has currently not been reported.

14. Effect on non-threatened fauna? Extracts from dried plant material of this species was found to be highly toxic to amphibians, at higher doses death can occur but even at lower concentrations the growth and development of frogs can be inhibited (Paulov 1993). This may not permanently alter habitat but could be seen to cause a reduction in habitat as a proportion becomes toxic and a reduction of individuals could occur from lethal levels of the toxin or from the inhibition of metamorphosis. This has not however been reported in the field.

15. Benefits fauna? A herb to 1.5 m and highly toxic, the species is therefore unlikely to offer any significant shelter. It may be pollinated by some insect species (von der Ohe 1991). The species is only reported to be eaten by goats (Fuller & McClintock 1986).

16. Injurious to fauna? Extracts from dried plant material of this species was found to be highly toxic to amphibians and has also been reported to be toxic to fish (Paulov 1993). Used to deter or potentially kill gophers and moles in the United States, with reported varying results (Dave’s Garden 2007).

PEST ANIMAL

17. Food source to pests? Unmanaged goats are reported to consume the species (Fuller & McClintock 1986). Due to the species toxic nature this is not thought to occur in significant amounts.

18. Provides harbor? Due to the species toxic nature and form it is considered unlikely to harbour pest species.

AGRICULTURE

19. Impact yield? There have been reports of livestock poisoning and death, however this is uncommon (Bayley 1941; Connor 1977; Parsons & Cuthbertson 2001).

20. Impact quality? The species is considered a weed of cultivation and the plant material is toxic even after drying (Connor 1977; Webb, Sykes & Garnock-Jones 1988). Therefore species may pose a dangerous contamination risk. The toxins can be passed into goat’s milk if the plant is consumed (McBarron 1977). This could contaminate several days production and make it unfit for human consumption and therefore sale. This has not however been reported to have occurred.

21. Affect land values? Unknown.

22. Change land use? See above. Unknown.

23. Increase harvest costs? Unknown.

24. Disease host/vector? The species has been reported as a host of Macrophomina phaseolina which can affect clover and soybeans along with some other soil borne pathogens (Wrather, Kendig & Tyler 1998; Young & Alcorn 1982; Young & Alcorn 1984; Zahid et al. 2001).

Assessment ratings originally made by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.

The entry of this assessment was made possible through the generous support of The Weed's Network.

Feedback

Do you have additional information about this plant that will improve the quality of the assessment? If so, we would value your contribution. Enter your feedback in the comment box below.

Attachments:

https___inaturalist-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com_photos_250080444_original.jpg
Capture.JPG

referenced by (1)

wra997: Common Name - C (via caper spurge)

Article: wra8793 (permalink)
Categories: :wra:e, :wra:inv1, :wra:invmh, :wra:inv2, :wra:inv3, :wra:inv4, :wra:invl, :wra:inv5, :wra:invm, :wra:inv6, :wra:inv7, :wra:inv8, :wra:inv9, :wra:invml, :wra:inv10, :wra:inv11, :wra:inv12, :wra:inv13, :wra:invh, :wra:inv14, :wra:inv15, :wra:imp1, :wra:impm, :wra:imp2, :wra:imp3, :wra:imph, :wra:imp4, :wra:impml, :wra:impl, :wra:imp5, :wra:imp6, :wra:imp7, :wra:imp8, :wra:imp9, :wra:imp10a, :wra:imp10b, :wra:imp10c, :wra:imp11, :wra:impmh, :wra:imp12, :wra:imp13, :wra:imp14, :wra:imp15, :wra:imp16, :wra:imp17, :wra:imp18, :wra:imp19, :wra:imp20, :wra:imp21, :wra:imp24
Date: 12 March 2023; 3:24:38 PM AEDT

Author Name: David Low
Author ID: adminDavid