Principal source: Chen et al. 2002. Adaptive responses of Lepidium latifolium to soil flooding: biomass allocation, adventitious rooting, aerenchyma formation and ethylene production.
Renz, 2000. Element Stewardship Abstract for Lepidium latifolium L.
Compiler: National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) & IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)
Review: Debra A. Boelk, Staff Research Associate University of California - Cooperative Extension Stockton, California
Publication date: 2006-12-06
Recommended citation: Global Invasive Species Database (2024) Species profile: Lepidium latifolium. Downloaded from http://iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=996 on 24-11-2024.
Additionally, L. latifolium also alters the ecosystem that it grows in. Research has shown that these plants can act as \"salt pumps\" which take salt ions from deep in the soil profile, transport them up through their roots and deposit them near the surface. This can favour halophytes and other species are at a disadvantage, thereby shifting plant composition and diversity. If soil salinities are dramatically increased, an intensive soil remediation program may be necessary before desirable native species can reestablish (Renz, 2000).
Furthermore, significant amounts of litter can build up in dense infestations forming a layer impenetrable to light. This layer prevents the emergence of annual plants in these areas and may reduce competition from other species. If L. latifolium is controlled, it may be necessary to remove the litter to stimulate germination and growth of desirable plant species (Renz, 2000).
Chemical: Research has determined the most effective phenological stage to apply systemic herbicides to L. latifolium is the flowerbud to early flowering stage. Chlorsulfuron at 1.5 oz/A (0.052kg /ha) [Telar® at 2 oz/A with 0.1% silicone based or 0.25% nonionic surfactant] delivers the most consistent long-term control of L. latifolium. Metsulfuron methyl (Escort®) appears to work as well as chlorsulfuron, but this herbicide has not been studied in as much detail. Both of these herbicides are fairly selective and will not cause significant damage to many grass species. Imazapyr (Arsenal®) can also deliver excellent control, but is a fairly nonselective herbicide, thus lower plant diversity and more bare ground will occur in areas following the use of this herbicide (Renz, 2000).
Mechanical: In studies by Allen et al. (2001), L. latifolium was reduced from 37 plants/m to 8.3 plants for grazed pastures and 38 plants/m to 17.7 plants for mowed pastures, a reduction of 78% and 46%, respectively, for one season. Sheep grazing reduced the number of L. latifolium plants without negatively impacting the growth of other native plant species. Additionally, grazing sheep on heavily infested areas and in topographically challenged regions may be more beneficial, especially if machine access is limited. Cattle and sheep will also graze on young foliage of L. latifolium when it grows amid other plants, but will not graze pure, dense stands (Allen et al. 2001; and Wood, 1998).
Biological: \r\nWood (1998) believes that L. latifolium is an unlikely candidate for biological control by beneficial weed-eating insects because it is a member of the mustard family and is related to several agricultural crops, including broccoli, cabbage, and horseradish. But a bio-control program for Hoary cress (Lepidium draba) has recently begun at ARS, Sidney, WY, USA using the collar gall weevil from Lepidium’s native range. Physiologically, greenhouse studies have shown that L. latifolium depletes soil nutrients, and that introducing certain native plant species with superior root systems and nutrient uptake, may be better suited for searching out nutrients and possibly out competing L. latifolium (Wood, 1998).