Articles on this page are available in 1 other language: Spanish (9) (learn more)

Overview

Comprehensive Description

Description

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees, weeping lovegrass, is a rapidly growing warm-season bunchgrass that was introduced into the U. S. from East Africa. The many long, narrow leaves emerging from a tight tuft are pendulous, with the tips almost touching the ground. The drooping leaf characteristic gives rise to the name “weeping” lovegrass. Leaf height is rarely above 12 inches. The seed heads are open panicles, reaching a height of 30 to 40 inches and containing numerous small, fine seeds.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

More info for the terms: ecotype, nonnative species, reclamation, wildfire

Weeping lovegrass is a nonnative species that occupies a relatively large range in the United States. Weeping lovegrass populations are sporadic along the western US coast, in the southern half of the continental states, along the eastern US coast, and in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. In the continental states, populations occur as far north as Illinois and Ohio [8,28]. Weeping lovegrass is most common in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas [37,47] but is "becoming common" in New Jersey and Pennsylvania [44]. Generally, weeping lovegrass is most common in those areas where it was intentionally planted. For a map of the scattered weeping lovegrass populations throughout the United States, see the Grass Manual on the Web.

Weeping lovegrass is native to southern Africa [8,123], and several ecotypes from different parts of South Africa were seeded and have become established in the United States [23,26].

Throughout the United States, weeping lovegrass was planted most often for erosion control and livestock forage [37,57,103,123,126]. However, it has also been used as an ornamental [49], in pastures [50], in mine reclamation [80,110], along highways [50,61], and on severely disturbed sites [135]. These topics are discussed more in Management Considerations.

Weeping lovegrass seed introduced to the United States was collected from several different African ecotypes. These ecotypes are recognized as cultivars in the United States. The earliest collection of weeping lovegrass seed, from north-central Tanzania, occurred in 1927. This ecotype ('A-67') was planted and established on 2,000,000 acres (800,000 ha) in Oklahoma and northwestern Texas from 1940 to 1980. Other ecotypes ('Emerlo' and 'Morpha') were collected near Pretoria, South Africa, in the 1940s and 1950s and were introduced in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. The last ecotype ('Renner') was collected from Lesotho, South Africa, and introduced in the United States in 1972 [23,26]. Ecotypes or cultivars are also discussed briefly in Aboveground description and Site Characteristics.

Weeping lovegrass was first planted in the United States in Stillwater, Oklahoma, in 1935. By 1965, it was growing in New York, and as recently as 1990, weeping lovegrass was seeded in southeastern Arizona. Throughout the southwestern and south-central United States, weeping lovegrass was planted extensively from 1936 to 1945 for erosion control [34]. In the southeastern United States, seeding of weeping lovegrass began in the 1940s. It was planted on a wildlife refuge in McBee, South Carolina, in 1942 (Ingram, personal communication cited in [126]) and on severely eroded, infertile, acidic sites in southeastern Tennessee, beginning in 1941 [29]. Beginning in the 1960s, weeping lovegrass was seeded along highways by the New York State Department of Transportation. Seeding occurred "en masse" in the 1970s and 80s on Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway in Suffolk County [61]. After 1988, severely disturbed sites were seeded with weeping lovegrass in Fort Benning, Georgia, [32] and on Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii [118]. As late as 1990, areas burned by a July wildfire in southeastern Arizona were seeded with weeping lovegrass. By 2002, weeping lovegrass monocultures had established to the virtual "exclusion of other native graminoids and forbs" [78]. The use of weeping lovegrass in revegetation and the potential for these projects to contribute to its spread are discussed more in Introduction and spread.

  • 123. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 49. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 47. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
  • 57. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
  • 44. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 23. Cox, J. R.; Martin-R., M. H.; Ibarra-F., F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, M. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1987. Effects of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants: proceedings of symposium; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 225-241. [15297]
  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 28. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
  • 29. Cummings, W. H. 1947. Weeping lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula, seeding test results in the Copper Basin. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 39(6): 522-529. [73623]
  • 32. Dale, Virginia H.; Beyeler, Suzanne C.; Jackson, Barbara. 2002. Understory vegetation indicators of anthropogenic disturbance in longleaf pine forests at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators. 1: 155-170. [73571]
  • 34. Dalrymple, R. L. 1976. Weeping lovegrass management. Ardmore, OK: Noble Foundation, Agriculture Division. 19 p. [73816]
  • 37. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany, No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 50. Hoagland, Bruce. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(4): 385-420. [41226]
  • 61. Lamont, Eric E.; Young, Stephen M. 2002. Noteworthy plants reported from the Torrey Range--2001. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 129(4): 363-371. [73596]
  • 80. Muncy, Jack A. 1989. Reclamation of abandoned manganese mines in southwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee. In: Walker, D. G.; Powter, C. B.; Pole, M. W., compilers. Proceedings of the conference: Reclamation, a global perspective; 1989 August 27-31; Calgary, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council: 199-208. [14355]
  • 103. Strausbaugh, P. D.; Core, Earl L. 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Seneca Books, Inc. 1079 p. [23213]
  • 110. Vogel, Willis G. 1973. The effect of herbaceous vegetation on survival and growth of trees planted on coal-mine spoils. In: Research and applied technology symposium on mined-land reclamation: Proceedings; 1973 March 7-8; Pittsburgh, PA. Monroeville, PA: Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.: 197-207. [21268]
  • 118. Warren, Steven D.; Aschmann, Stefanie G. 1993. Revegetation strategies for Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii. Journal of Range Management. 46(5): 462-466. [73613]
  • 126. Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 1999. Oncozygia calvicornis Stal and Allopodops mississippiensis Harris and Johnston: association of rarely collected Nearctic turtle bugs (Heteroptera: Pentamoidae: Podopinae) with an introduced African grass. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 101(4): 714-721. [73619]
  • 135. Ziegler, Alan D.; Warren, Steven D.; Perry, J. Lyman; Giambelluca, Thomas W. 2000. Reassessment of revegetation strategies for Kaho'olawe Island, Hawai'i. Journal of Range Management. 53(1): 106-113. [69223]
  • 78. Medina, Alvin Leroy. 2003. A 12-year post-fire assessment of riparian habitat conditions of the Dude Fire in central Arizona. In: 2nd international wildland fire ecology and fire management congress: Proceedings; 2003 November 17; Orlando, FL. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society: Abstract. Available online: http://ams.confex.com/ams/FIRE2003/techprogram/paper_66857.htm [2006, April 10]. [73808]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Eragrostis jeffreysii Hack.:
South Africa (Africa & Madagascar)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
  • Gibbs Russell, G. E., W. G. Welman, E. Reitief, K. L. Immelman, G. Germishuizen, B. J. Pienaar, M. v. Wyk & A. Nicholas. 1987. List of species of southern African plants. Mem. Bot. Surv. S. Africa 2(1–2): 1–152(pt. 1), 1–270(pt. 2).   http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1371 External link.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Eragrostis robusta Stent:
India (Asia)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Eragrostis chloromelas Steud.:
South Africa (Africa & Madagascar)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
  • Gibbs Russell, G. E., W. G. Welman, E. Reitief, K. L. Immelman, G. Germishuizen, B. J. Pienaar, M. v. Wyk & A. Nicholas. 1987. List of species of southern African plants. Mem. Bot. Surv. S. Africa 2(1–2): 1–152(pt. 1), 1–270(pt. 2).   http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1371 External link.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Localities documented in Tropicos sources

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees:
China (Asia)
Mexico (Mesoamerica)
Brazil (South America)

Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Exotic

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Unknown/Undetermined

Confidence: Confident

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution: Pakistan (Sind, Baluchistan & N.WFP.; introduced) Kenya and Tanzania southwards to South Africa; introduced throughout the tropics.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Adaptation

Weeping lovegrass prefers a light-textured, well-drained soil, and will thrive on soils of low fertility. Climatic conditions determine its range of adaptation. Low winter temperatures will prevent regrowth and cause the grass to act as an annual or a short-lived perennial.

Weeping lovegrass is distributed throughout the southern United States. For a current distribution map, please consult the Plant Profile page for this species on the PLANTS Website.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Morphology

Description

Botanical description: This description covers characteristics that may be relevant to fire ecology and is not meant for identification. Keys for identification are available (e.g., [8,44,49,123]).

Aboveground description: Weeping lovegrass is a large bunchgrass that is generally a long-lived perennial [3,8,49] but in northern US habitats may be an annual [58]. Weeping lovegrass may reach 75 inches (190 cm) tall, and the basal crown diameter of isolated plants may reach 15 inches (38 cm) [95,123]. Leaf blades are narrow, stiff, finely pointed, and measure up to 26 inches (65 cm) long and 3 mm wide. Leaf blade margins are often rolled inward [8,28,81].

Weeping lovegrass generally produces open, nodding panicles. Inflorescences may measure 16 inches (40 cm) long and 6 inches (15 cm) wide. Spikelets may reach 1 cm long and contain 4 to 15 florets [8,47,123]. Seeds are rather long, up to 1.7 mm, and flattened [8,47,88].

Weeping lovegrass ecotypes and/or cultivars described in the Distribution and Occurrence section typically differ only in leaf size, palatability, "vigor", and/or cold tolerance [23,26]. Cultivars are likely best identified through historical planting records and not through morphological differences.

Photo © James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org

Belowground description: Weeping lovegrass produces an extensive thick mat of roots, which have made it useful for erosion control [3,58]. Shoop and McIlvain [95] report that vertical roots may reach 15 feet (4.6 m) deep and spread out 3 feet (1 m) on sandy soils. Roots often fill all the surface soil space between plants. The first roots produced by weeping lovegrass seedlings are large and generally grow straight down; these primary roots develop 30 to 60 fine rootlets per inch of primary root length. Seedling roots grow rapidly; in the first month of growth, weeping lovegrass roots averaged of 0.54 inches (1.4 cm) of growth per day. Maximum seedling root growth in a single day was 2 inches (5 cm). In the field, a 2-year-old weeping lovegrass plant produced 600 to 800 main roots that reached a maximum depth of over 6 feet (2 m) and a maximum lateral spread of over 10 feet (3 m) [27].

  • 123. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 49. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 47. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
  • 44. Gleason, Henry A.; Cronquist, Arthur. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. 910 p. [20329]
  • 3. Alderson, James; Sharp, W. Curtis. 1995. Grass varieties in the United States. New York: Lewis Publishers. 304 p. [73814]
  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 23. Cox, J. R.; Martin-R., M. H.; Ibarra-F., F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, M. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1987. Effects of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants: proceedings of symposium; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 225-241. [15297]
  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 28. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
  • 58. Kelly, Joseph B.; Midgley, A. R.; Varney, K. E. 1948. Revegetation of sandblows in Vermont. Bulletin 542. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont and State Agricultural College; Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [73835]
  • 81. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
  • 88. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
  • 95. Shoop, M. C.; McIlvain, E. H. 1970. Growth patterns of weeping lovegrass and how they relate to management. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 1-9. [73829]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Perennial. Culms densely tufted, erect, 80–120 cm tall, 5–6-noded. Leaf sheaths scabrous with retrorse hairs at lower part, glabrous upward, shorter than internodes, long pilose along the summit; leaf blades elongate, involute, attenuate to a fine point, arcuate spreading, scabrous, (5–)10–40 cm × 1–2.5(–3) mm. Panicles open, 12–35 × 6–9 cm; branches solitary or in pairs, ascending, naked at base, at least the lower densely pilose in axils. Spikelets gray-green, (4–)6–11 × 1.5–2 mm, 5–16-flowered. Glumes lanceolate, apex acuminate, 1-veined, lower glume 1.2–1.5 mm, upper glume 1.8–2.5 mm. Lemmas broadly oblong, apex acute or obtuse, veins prominent, lower lemma 2–2.5 mm. Palea subequal to lemma, 2-keeled, persistent or tardily deciduous. Stamens 3; anthers ca. 1.2 mm. Caryopsis ellipsoid to obovoid, dorsally compressed, adaxial surface with a shallow, broad groove or ungrooved, smooth, mostly translucent, light brown, 1–1.7 mm. Fl. and fr. Apr–Sep. 2n = 20, 42, 63, 80.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Physical Description

Perennials, Terrestrial, not aquatic, Stems nodes swollen or brittle, Stems erect or ascending, Stems caespitose, tufted, or clustered, Stems terete, round in cross section, or polygonal, Stem internodes solid or spongy, Stem internodes hollow, Stems with inflorescence less than 1 m tall, Stems with inflorescence 1-2 m tall, Stems, culms, or scapes exceeding basal leaves, Leaves mostly basal, below middle of stem, Leaf tips flexuous, drooping, blades thin, lax, soft, Leaves sheathing at base, Leaf sheath mostly o pen, or loose, Leaf sheath hairy, hispid or prickly, Leaf sheath hairy at summit, throat, or collar, Leaf sheath and blade differentiated, Leaf sheath indurate basally, Leaf blades linear, Leaf blades very narrow or filiform, less than 2 mm wide, Leaf blades 2-10 mm wide, Leaf blades mostly flat, Leaf blade margins folded, involute, or conduplicate, Leaf blades mostly glabrous, Ligule present, Ligule a fringe of hairs, Inflorescence terminal, Inflorescence an open panicle, openly paniculate, branches spreading, Inflorescence a contracted panicle, narrowly paniculate, branches appressed or ascending, Inflorescence solitary, with 1 spike, fascicle, glomerule, head, or cluster per stem or culm, Inflorescence lax, widely spreading, branches drooping, pendulous, Inflorescence curved, twisted or nodding, Inflorescence branches more than 10 to numerous, Flowers bisexual, Spikelets pedicellate, Spikelets laterally compressed, Spikelet less than 3 mm wide, Spikelets with 3-7 florets , Spikelets with 8-40 florets, Spikelets solitary at rachis nodes, Spikelets all alike and fertille, Spikelets bisexual, Spikelets disarticulating above the glumes, glumes persistent, Spikelets disarticulating beneath or between the florets, Rachilla or pedicel glabrous, Glumes present, empty bracts, Glumes 2 clearly present, Glumes equal or subequal, Glumes distinctly unequal, Glumes shorter than adjacent lemma, Glumes 1 nerved, Lemmas thin, chartaceous, hyaline, cartilaginous, or membranous, Lemma similar in texture to glumes, Lemma 3 nerved, Lemma glabrous, Lemma apex truncate, rounded, or obtuse, Lemma apex acute or acuminate, Lemma awnless, Lemma margins thin, lying flat, Lemma straight, Palea present, well developed, Palea membranous, hyaline, Palea shorter than lemma, Palea 2 nerved or 2 keeled, Palea keels winged, scabrous, or ciliate, Stamens 3, Styles 2-fid, deeply 2-branched, Stigmas 2, Fruit - caryopsis, Caryopsis ellipsoid, longitudinally grooved, hilum long-lin ear.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

Dr. David Bogler

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Description

Densely tufted perennial; basal leaf-sheaths strongly striate with the nerves forming prominent ridges, often hard and yellowish, appressed silky hairy below; culms 30-120 cm high, slender or robust, usually erect. Leaf-blades narrow, up to about 30 cm long and 3 mm wide, usually rolled or filiform. Panicle very variable, loose and spreading to narrow and contracted, 6-30 cm long, the lowest branches often whorled and hairy in the axils. Spikelets 4-13-flowered, linear, 4-10 mm long, 1-1.5 mm wide, grey-green, breaking up from the base, the rhachilla persistent below but fragile above; lower glume lanceolate, 1-1.8 mm long, one-third to three-quarters as long as the lowest floret; upper glume narrowly ovate, 1.5-2.2 mm long; lemmas ovate-elliptic, 1.8-2.6 mm long, appressed to the rhachilla; palea smooth or minutely scaberulous on the keels, persistent; anthers 3, 0.8-1.1 mm long. Caryopsis ellipsoid, 0.7 mm long.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Diagnostic Description

Synonym

Poa curvula Schrader, Gött. Gel. Anz. 3: 2073. 1821.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Type Information

Type collection for Eragrostis jeffreysii Hack.
Catalog Number: US 2941512
Collection: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany
Verification Degree: Original publication and alleged type specimen examined
Preparation: Pressed specimen
Collector(s): -- Gardner
Locality: Prope Bulowayo, Zimbabwe [Rhodesia], Africa
  • Type collection: Hackel, E. 1908. Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc. 7 (2): 68.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany

Source: National Museum of Natural History Collections

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Type fragment for Eragrostis filiformis Link
Catalog Number: US 91380
Collection: Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany
Verification Degree: Card file verified by examination of alleged type specimen
Preparation: Pressed specimen
Collector(s): ex herb. Elliott
Locality: United States, North America
  • Type fragment: Link, J. H. 1827. Hort. Bot. Berol. 1: 191.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Department of Botany

Source: National Museum of Natural History Collections

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Habitat characteristics

Weeping lovegrass is described most often along roadsides, near gardens, in pastures and fields, on disturbed sites, and at forest and woodland edges throughout its nonnative US range [8,28,49,88,133,134].

Climate: In weeping lovegrass' native African range, average monthly minimum and maximum temperatures are 50 to 64 °F (10-18 °C) and 77 to 86 °F (25-30° C), respectively. Winters are cold and dry, and annual precipitation averages 20 to 47 inches (500-1,200 mm). More than half of annual precipitation falls during the growing season [26].

Several rangeland revegetation guides provide a range of low temperature and precipitation tolerances for weeping lovegrass. In a review, Crider [27] reports that closely packed basal stems provide substantial protection of meristems from cold temperatures and droughts. Others report that hard freezing in late April or early May can cause weeping lovegrass mortality [95]. Some report that plants do not persist in areas where temperatures often fall below 0 °F (-18 °C) [33], although plants may survive -11° F (-24 °C) in soils with "adequate" moisture [52]. Seeding guidelines for desert grasslands in southern Arizona, suggest that weeping lovegrass seeding success and persistence are best on sites receiving at least 18 inches (460 mm) of precipitation annually [4]. Weeping lovegrass is unlikely to persist on sites receiving less than 15 inches (380 mm) of annual precipitation [30]. It is possible that temperature and precipitation minimums for weeping lovegrass survival vary among different ecotypes or cultivars. Alderson and Sharp [3] reported that the 'A-67' cultivar is more cold tolerant than other cultivars and grows best where annual precipitation exceeds 14 inches (350 mm). Cultivar 'A-84' grows on sites receiving at least 12 inches (300 mm) of annual precipitation.

In the United States, weeping lovegrass is most productive on sites where minimum and maximum temperatures average 32 to 86 °F (0-30 °C) and summer precipitation averages 16 to 39 inches (400-1,000 mm) [23,26]. However, in Beltsville, Maryland, weeping lovegrass plants were not injured by low temperatures of -16 °F (-27 °C), and plants survived temperatures of -20° F (-29 °C) near Deansboro, New York. In "heavy" soils in Woodward, Oklahoma, though, plants were winter killed at temperatures of 0 °F (-18 °C) [27].

Elevation: In East and South Africa, weeping lovegrass occupies sites between 2,300 and 5,740 feet (700-1,750 m) [26]. In the United States, weeping lovegrass occurs from sea level in the East to over 7,000 feet (2,100 m) in the Southwest [8,119]. Weeping lovegrass occurs at elevations below 1,600 feet (500 m) in California [49], at less than 4,990 feet (1,520 m) in Utah [123], and at elevations of 2,850 to 3,770 feet (870-1,150 m) in the Grand Canyon region [101]. In western Oklahoma and northern Texas, weeping lovegrass occurs at 1,000 to 3,300 feet (300-1,000 m) [26].

Soils: Weeping lovegrass grows best in well-drained, relatively fertile, nonsaline, sandy to clay loam soils [27,33]. It does not tolerate standing water [27].

Most often weeping lovegrass occurs in sandy soils [47,88]. In a greenhouse, weeping lovegrass seedling emergence was greatest from sandy loam (54%) when compared to Pima silty clay loam (47%) and Sonoita silty clay loam (22%). The clay of the Pima soils was 60% montmorillionite and for the Sonoita soils was 80% kaolinite [25].

Weeping lovegrass tolerates salinity and a wide pH range. A review reports that weeping lovegrass is very salt tolerant [129], and in a short-term greenhouse study, weeping lovegrass production after 20 days of treatments with 180 mol NaCl/m³ was 82% of that of nonsaline treatments [93]. In loamy soils in Garza County, Texas, weeping lovegrass grew in areas with a pH of 8.4 [69], and in a controlled study, researchers found that weeping lovegrass seedling growth was not reduced at pH 4 but was reduced at pH 3 [39].

  • 123. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 49. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 47. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
  • 3. Alderson, James; Sharp, W. Curtis. 1995. Grass varieties in the United States. New York: Lewis Publishers. 304 p. [73814]
  • 4. Anderson, Darwin; Hamilton, Louis P.; Reynolds, Hudson G.; Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Reseeding desert grassland ranges in southern Arizona. Bulletin 249. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 32 p. [4439]
  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 23. Cox, J. R.; Martin-R., M. H.; Ibarra-F., F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, M. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1987. Effects of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants: proceedings of symposium; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 225-241. [15297]
  • 25. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin, Martha H. 1984. Effects of planting depth and soil texture on the emergence of four lovegrasses. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 204-205. [73587]
  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 28. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
  • 30. Dahl, B. E.; Cotter, P. F. 1984. Management of weeping lovegrass in west Texas. Management Note 5. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 4 p. [2699]
  • 33. Dalrymple, R. L. 1970. Weeping lovegrass establishment and management of first year stands. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 21-27. [73830]
  • 39. Fleming, A. L.; Schwartz, J. W.; Foy, C. D. 1974. Chemical factors controlling the adaptation of weeping lovegrass and tall fescue to acid mine spoils. Agronomy Journal. 66(6): 715-719. [25068]
  • 52. Hoover, Max M.; Hein, M. A.; Dayton, William A.; Erlanson, C. O. 1948. The main grasses for farm and home. In: Grass: The yearbook of agriculture--1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 639-700. [1190]
  • 69. Matizha, William; Dahl, Bill E. 1991. Factors affecting weeping lovegrass seedling vigor on shinnery oak range. Journal of Range Management. 44(3): 223-227. [61683]
  • 88. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
  • 93. Rogers, M. E.; Noble, C. L.; Pederick, R. J. 1996. Identifying suitable grass species for saline areas. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 36(2): 197-202. [47758]
  • 95. Shoop, M. C.; McIlvain, E. H. 1970. Growth patterns of weeping lovegrass and how they relate to management. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 1-9. [73829]
  • 101. Stevens, Lawrence E.; Ayers, Tina. 2002. The biodiversity and distribution of exotic vascular plants and animals in the Grand Canyon region. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 241-265. [48667]
  • 119. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023. [2458]
  • 129. Williams, David G.; Baruch, Zdravko. 2000. African grass invasion in the Americas: ecosystem consequences and the role of ecophysiology. Biological Invasions. 2: 123-140. [70478]
  • 133. Wunderlin, Richard P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central Florida. Tampa, FL: University Presses of Florida. 472 p. [13125]
  • 134. Wunderlin, Richard P.; Hansen, Bruce F. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. 2nd edition. Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida Press. 787 p. [69433]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Key Plant Community Associations

More info for the terms: association, hardwood

Weeping lovegrass occupies forest edges and pine-oak (Pinus-Quercus spp.) and
mixed hardwood woodlands throughout its nonnative range [8]. In the southwestern United States
and southern Great Plains, weeping lovegrass is common in Arizona chaparral [17], shortgrass
prairie [132], desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper (Pinus-Juniperus spp.) woodlands,
and disturbed areas [123]. In Oklahoma, a weeping lovegrass herbaceous association is recognized
due to the extensive and persistent stands [50]. Persistence of weeping lovegrass differed by
vegetation type in Arizona's Tonto National Forest. In 1945, weeping lovegrass was seeded in a
semidesert shrubland type dominated by mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), catclaw acacia
(Acacia greggii), paloverde (Parkinsonia spp.), and spiny hackberry (Celtis
ehrenbergiana), a semidesert grassland type dominated by western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum
smithii), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and sideoats grama (B. curtipendula),
and a pinyon-Utah juniper (J. osteosperma) type. Weeping lovegrass persisted in the semidesert
shrubland for less than 20 years and in the pinyon-juniper type for less than 30 years. Weeping
lovegrass remained in the grassland type for 30 years or more [55].
  • 123. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 17. Carmichael, R. S.; Knipe, O. D.; Pase, C. P.; Brady, W. W. 1978. Arizona chaparral: plant associations and ecology. Res. Pap. RM-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [3038]
  • 50. Hoagland, Bruce. 2000. The vegetation of Oklahoma: a classification for landscape mapping and conservation planning. The Southwestern Naturalist. 45(4): 385-420. [41226]
  • 55. Judd, B. Ira; Judd, Larry W. 1976. Plant survival in the arid Southwest 30 years after seeding. Journal of Range Management. 29(3): 248-251. [69187]
  • 132. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains--a research review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-77. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 60 p. [2618]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat & Distribution

Commonly cultivated for ornament. Fujian, Guangxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, Xinjiang, Yunnan [native to Africa].
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Dispersal

Establishment

This grass is easy to establish by seed. Seed alone at a rate of 3 to 5 pounds per acre, or 1 to 2 pounds per acre in mixtures with other species. Seeds will germinate quickly and plant growth is rapid. The seed is extremely fine, requiring mechanical seeding equipment to have small seed attachments. If seeded with a ‘hand’ cyclone seeder, the lovegrass seed should be mixed with a diluent or a carrier (cornmeal, sand, or fine sawdust) for uniform distribution of seed. Do not cover seed more than 1/2 to 1 inch on sandy soils; 1/4 inch is sufficient on silt loams. Cultipacking soil before seeding is helpful.

Sites too steep or stony for use of mechanical equipment can be seeded without soil scarification. Broadcast seeding by air or use of hydroseeders is successful if seeding rates are increased to compensate for poor seedbed. Where possible, the soil should be scarified and firmed.

Normally, weeping lovegrass can be planted after danger of severe frost is over, and anytime throughout the summer with success. Lime and fertilizer needs are similar to that for tall fescue and ryegrass when used for temporary cover.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

General Ecology

Fire Management Considerations

More info for the terms: fire suppression, litter, prescribed fire, restoration

Potential for postfire establishment and spread: Weeping lovegrass can establish from seed on burned sites [15,78]. Although weeping lovegrass seed dispersal is limited, if stands occur near burned sites, there is high potential for establishment on burned sites. In recent years, weeping lovegrass has been intentionally seeded on burned sites [78] and in other revegetation efforts [32,118], making it virtually impossible to control weeping lovegrass populations and spread in these areas.

Preventing invasive plants from establishing in weed-free burned areas is the most effective and least costly management method. This can be accomplished through early detection and eradication, careful monitoring and follow-up, and limiting dispersal of invasive plant seed into burned areas. General recommendations for preventing postfire establishment and spread of invasive plants include:

  • Incorporate cost of weed prevention and management into fire rehabilitation plans
  • Include weed prevention education in fire training
  • Minimize soil disturbance and vegetation removal during fire suppression and rehabilitation activities
  • Minimize the use of retardants containing nitrogen and phosphorus
  • Avoid areas dominated by high priority invasive plants when locating firelines, monitoring camps, staging areas, and helibases
  • Clean equipment and vehicles prior to entering burned areas
  • Regulate or prevent human and livestock entry into burned areas until desirable site vegetation has recovered sufficiently to resist invasion by undesirable vegetation
  • Monitor burned areas and areas of significant disturbance or traffic from management activity
  • Detect weeds early and eradicate before vegetative spread and/or seed dispersal
  • Eradicate small patches and contain or control large infestations within or adjacent to the burned area
  • Reestablish vegetation on bare ground as soon as possible
  • Avoid use of fertilizers in postfire rehabilitation and restoration
  • Use only certified weed-free seed mixes when revegetation is necessary

For more detailed information on these topics see the following publications: [6,14,46,107].

Prescribed fire as a control agent: Prescribed fire is not a likely control agent for weeping lovegrass. Establishment of weeping lovegrass is often increased by removal of litter. However, fire frequencies at less than 5-year intervals may damage plants [43], although this did not occur in South Africa [42]. During fire studies designed to determine how best to use fire to encourage weeping lovegrass growth, a researcher found that summer and winter fires can decrease productivity and late-spring fires may kill seedlings. Plant damage was most likely when soils in weeping lovegrass stands were dry and litter had built up in plant crowns [34].

  • 6. Asher, Jerry; Dewey, Steven; Olivarez, Jim; Johnson, Curt. 1998. Minimizing weed spread following wildland fires. Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 51: 49. [40409]
  • 14. Brooks, Matthew L. 2008. Effects of fire suppression and postfire management activities on plant invasions. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 269-280. [70909]
  • 15. Cable, Dwight R. 1957. Recovery of chaparral following burning and seeding in central Arizona. Res. Note. No. 28. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [6342]
  • 32. Dale, Virginia H.; Beyeler, Suzanne C.; Jackson, Barbara. 2002. Understory vegetation indicators of anthropogenic disturbance in longleaf pine forests at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Ecological Indicators. 1: 155-170. [73571]
  • 34. Dalrymple, R. L. 1976. Weeping lovegrass management. Ardmore, OK: Noble Foundation, Agriculture Division. 19 p. [73816]
  • 42. Fynn, Richard W. S.; Morris, Craig D.; Edwards, Trevor J. 2005. Long-term compositional responses of a South African mesic grassland to burning and mowing. Applied Vegetation Science. 8(1): 5-12. [73573]
  • 43. Garcia, Herman B. 1993. Sea of grass in New Mexico: A perspective on CRP. Rangelands. 15(1): 18-21. [20511]
  • 118. Warren, Steven D.; Aschmann, Stefanie G. 1993. Revegetation strategies for Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii. Journal of Range Management. 46(5): 462-466. [73613]
  • 46. Goodwin, Kim; Sheley, Roger; Clark, Janet. 2002. Integrated noxious weed management after wildfires. EB-160. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University, Extension Service. 46 p. Available online: http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/eb160.html [2003, October 1]. [45303]
  • 78. Medina, Alvin Leroy. 2003. A 12-year post-fire assessment of riparian habitat conditions of the Dude Fire in central Arizona. In: 2nd international wildland fire ecology and fire management congress: Proceedings; 2003 November 17; Orlando, FL. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society: Abstract. Available online: http://ams.confex.com/ams/FIRE2003/techprogram/paper_66857.htm [2006, April 10]. [73808]
  • 107. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf [2005, October 25]. [37889]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Regimes

More info for the terms: fire frequency, fire management, fire regime, fire-return interval, frequency, fuel, fuel continuity

Weeping lovegrass may experience high fire frequency in its native and nonnative habitats. In the 900-km² Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park dominated by weeping lovegrass in northern Kwa-Natal, South Africa, the average fire-return interval is 3.8 years. Fire frequency depends largely on fire management policies but also depends on fuel loads, which depend on rainfall. Fire frequency and size were evaluated from 1,111 fire records from 1956 to 1996. In the Park, all but 1 study site had a fire-return interval of 4 years or less. On average, 26% of the park burned each year, and fire size averaged 9.1 km². In the 40-year period, less than 1% of the Park burned only once and another 1% burned more than 20 times. Most fires were ignited by park staff in spring. There were only a few lightning fires and those burned in the summer. Larger areas burned in wet than dry years due to increased grass fuel loads, which increased fire spread potential [5,7].

Before European settlement and the introduction of weeping lovegrass in the Great Plains region of the United States, level to rolling grasslands may have burned every 5 to 10 years and areas with rougher topography may have burned every 20 to 30 years. In the Great Plains, where weeping lovegrass has now been widely introduced, "big" fires tend to occur in drought years that follow at least 2 years of above-average precipitation. If fuels are abundant and continuous, wind speeds and air temperatures are high, and relative humidity is low, fires may spread many miles. Several factors associated with European settlement, such as heavy grazing and cultivation, decreased the fuel availability and fuel continuity in desert grasslands and led to decreased fire frequency [109,132]. Introduction of nonnative grasses, however, may have had the opposite effect on fuel availability, fuel continuity, and possibly fire frequency.

Although no studies directly measure fuel or fire behavior differences between weeping lovegrass-dominated and native-dominated desert grasslands, several studies report on stand structure, development, and growth differences between lovegrasses and native grasses that could influence fire behavior and FIRE REGIMES. Stand structure is often different in native-dominated and lovegrass-dominated grasslands. Lovegrass-dominated grasslands are dense and capable of supporting fire spread, while native grasses are generally discontinuous and less conducive to fire spread [90]. Several researchers have noted increased weeping lovegrass seed production and plant abundance on burned sites [59,68,74,84], which a review [90] reports is rare for native desert grassland species. The review suggests that postfire increases in plant abundance and reproduction could support increased fire frequencies. Given these differences in native- and lovegrass-dominated grasslands, fire frequencies may increase and fire behavior may be different with increased abundance of nonnative lovegrasses.

Along highways near Perth, Australia, sclerophyll woodlands where weeping lovegrass is common burned at 10- to 20-year intervals. Ten-year fire-return intervals were most common (van der Moezel and others 1987 as cited in [79]).

See the Fire Regime Table for further information on FIRE REGIMES of vegetation communities in which weeping lovegrass may occur.

  • 132. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Fire ecology and prescribed burning in the Great Plains--a research review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-77. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 60 p. [2618]
  • 5. Archibald, S.; Bond, W. J.; Stock, W. D.; Fairbanks, D. H. K. 2005. Shaping the landscape: fire-grazer interactions in an African savanna. Ecological Applications. 15(1): 96-109. [73565]
  • 7. Balfour, D. A.; Howison, O. E. 2002. Spatial and temporal variation in a mesic savanna fire regime: responses to variation in annual rainfall. African Journal of Range and Forage Science. 19: 45-53. [73809]
  • 59. Klett, W. Ellis; Hollingsworth, Dale; Schuster, Joseph L. 1971. Increasing utilization of weeping lovegrass by burning. Journal of Range Management. 24(1): 22-24. [36675]
  • 68. Masters, Robert A.; Britton, Carlton M.; Roberts, Fred H. 1982. Effects of season of burn on weeping lovegrass. In: Research highlights--1982: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 13. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management: 29. [74020]
  • 74. McIlvain, E. H.; Shoop, M. C. 1970. Burning old growth weeping lovegrass. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 44-51. [73831]
  • 79. Milbery, Per; Lamont, Byron B. 1995. Fire enhances weed invasion of roadside vegetation in southwestern Australia. Biological Conservation. 73: 45-49. [71257]
  • 84. Pase, Charles P.; Knipe, O. D. 1977. Effect of winter burning on herbaceous cover on a converted chaparral watershed. Journal of Range Management. 30(5): 346-348. [1828]
  • 90. Rice, Peter M.; McPherson, Guy R.; Rew, Lisa J. 2008. Fire and nonnative invasive plants in the Interior West bioregion. In: Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 141-173. [70332]
  • 109. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993. The role and use of fire in the Great Plains: A state of the art review. In: Fire effects in plant communities on the public lands. EA #MT-930-93-01. [Billings, MT]: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office: II-1 to II-51. [55087]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fuels

More info for the terms: fireline intensity, fuel, litter, wildfire

Researchers have noted weeping lovegrass persistence on annually burned sites [42,74,119], suggesting that fine fuel production is sufficient to carry annual fires in weeping lovegrass stands. Litter is "pronounced" in weeping lovegrass monocultures [36] and accumulates in and around the base of weeping lovegrass plants and around weeping lovegrass root crowns the longer stands are undisturbed [27].

Fire behavior in nonnative habitats: Fire behavior has been described in weeping lovegrass stands in Texas and in velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina)-desert grasslands in southern Arizona. Fire behavior varied widely during spring prescribed fires (24 head fires and 12 backfires) in weeping lovegrass stands in north-central Texas. Fireline intensity ranged from 75 to 4,706 btu/ft/s. Fuel consumption varied by a factor of 2, and rate of forward spread varied by a factor of 40. In the spring, a minimum total fuel load of 3,308 kg/ha was necessary for successful fire spread. Successful fires spread at 0.3 to 2 miles (0.04-3.4 km)/hour. During the fastest fire, the air temperature was 88 °F (31 °C), relative humidity was 14%, and wind speed averaged 45 km/hour [18,19]. Researchers evaluated fire behavior following a 2002 wildfire in velvet mesquite-desert grasslands in the Sonoita Valley of southern Arizona, where large areas are dominated by weeping lovegrass. The fire burned from 29 April to 2 May when the air temperature was 81 °F (27° C), wind speed averaged 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km)/hour, and relative humidity was less than 10%. Using computer modeling and information from burned sites, researchers estimated that the fire produced scorch heights of up to 200 feet (60 m) and a fireline intensity of up to 7,500 kW/m [60].

  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 42. Fynn, Richard W. S.; Morris, Craig D.; Edwards, Trevor J. 2005. Long-term compositional responses of a South African mesic grassland to burning and mowing. Applied Vegetation Science. 8(1): 5-12. [73573]
  • 119. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023. [2458]
  • 18. Clark, Robert G. 1983. Threshold requirements for fire spread in grassland fuels. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 72 p. Dissertation. [73569]
  • 19. Clark, Robert G.; Wright, Henry A. 1981. Fineline intensities and rates-of-spread in grassland fuels. In: Sosebee, Ronald E.; Guthery, Fred S., eds. Research highlights--1981: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 12. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, Department of Range and Wildlife Management: 29. [74021]
  • 36. Davis, Stephen Seth. 1998. Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals and beetle assemblages in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 55 p. Thesis. [73572]
  • 60. Kupfer, John A.; Miller, Jay D. 2005. Wildfire effects and post-fire responses of an invasive mesquite population: the interactive importance of grazing and non-native herbaceous species invasion. Journal of Biogeography. 32(3): 453-466. [60201]
  • 74. McIlvain, E. H.; Shoop, M. C. 1970. Burning old growth weeping lovegrass. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 44-51. [73831]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fuels and Fire Regimes

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Successional Status

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: climax, competition, cover, interference, shrub, succession

In its native African grassland habitats, weeping lovegrass is most common in the seral stage just before "climax" in East and South Africa [30]. A review describes grassland succession in South Africa. Initially sites are colonized by "weedy" vegetation, which is then replaced by short-lived perennials, which are replaced by short-lived grasses. In the next successional stage, the long-lived grass stage, weeping lovegrass is common, until its eventual replacement by the climax red grass (Themeda trianda). After top-killing disturbances, such as fire, in the climax grassland, weeping lovegrass is often dominant [27].

Weeping lovegrass is tolerant of partial shade, and in Beltsville, Maryland, weeping lovegrass established and grew in "almost" complete shade [27]. However, within 5 years of a fire near Globe, Arizona, increases in shrub live oak (Q. turbinella) appeared to reduce weeping lovegrass abundance. Basal cover of weeping lovegrass was inversely proportional to shrub live oak crown cover. In experiments where more than 50% of shrub live oak cover was removed, weeping lovegrass cover increased for up to 3 years [87]. Whether or not weeping lovegrass abundance was reduced by shrub live oak shading is unclear. It is possible that competition for root space or other interference was more important (see Belowground description).

In its nonnative US habitats, weeping lovegrass has been planted in many disturbed sites (see sections on Distribution and Occurrence and Introduction and spread). It persists on harsh sites and recovers rapidly following defoliation. In the desert grasslands of Sonita Valley, Arizona, cattle grazing seemed to encourage establishment and growth of weeping lovegrass and Lehmann lovegrass. Researchers tracked changes in lovegrass cover in an area where they were seeded; in an ungrazed, unseeded area; and in a grazed, unseeded area. Lovegrass cover generally increased over time in all areas, but over the 22-year study, increases were 2.5 times greater on grazed, unseeded areas than on ungrazed, unseeded areas even though the ungrazed, unseeded area was closest to the seeded area [10].

  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 30. Dahl, B. E.; Cotter, P. F. 1984. Management of weeping lovegrass in west Texas. Management Note 5. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 4 p. [2699]
  • 10. Bock, C. E.; Bock, J. H.; Kennedy, L.; Jones, Z. F. 2007. Spread of non-native grasses into grazed versus ungrazed desert grasslands. Journal of Arid Environments. 71(2): 229-235. [67983]
  • 87. Pond, Floyd W. 1961. Basal cover and production of weeping lovegrass under varying amounts of shrub live oak crown cover. Journal of Range Management. 14: 335-337. [259]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Vegetative regeneration

More info for the terms: litter, tiller, tussock

Reproduction of weeping lovegrass by vegetative means has only been described in one reference. Generally weeping lovegrass vegetative regeneration occurs only when stems are damaged or removed by grazing or fire. In a review, Crider [27] describes limited asexual reproduction by weeping lovegrass, but other sources have not. Crider reports that new stems may form at nodes on the stem rather than at the usual basal nodes. During warm wet weather, these new stems may root in the litter surrounding the crown and become detached from the parent plant [27]. Barkworth and others [8] noted that weeping lovegrass forms "innovations at the basal nodes" but that plants are not rhizomatous.

It is common for weeping lovegrass clumps to experience central stem death if ungrazed or unburned for 10 years or more. An accumulation of litter restricts tiller production at the center of undisturbed, mature plants [30], possibly because limited light within the interior of the tussock limits tiller recruitment [117]. During drought conditions, however, moisture is also important. Soil water content directly beneath clumps with open interiors was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that found at the tussock's periphery, which could promote outward tiller expansion. In a 10-year-old weeping lovegrass stand near Lubbock, Texas, tiller recruitment was stimulated by removing litter from the center of plants. Interior tiller recruitment was significantly greater (P<0.005) for plants with litter removed than for control plants. However, the results were opposite when litter removal was paired with defoliation. Interior tiller recruitment was significantly greater (P<0.001) for plants clipped to a 6-inch (15 cm) height with litter intact than for clipped plants with litter removed [117].

  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 30. Dahl, B. E.; Cotter, P. F. 1984. Management of weeping lovegrass in west Texas. Management Note 5. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 4 p. [2699]
  • 117. Wan, Changgui; Sosebee, Ronald E. 2000. Central dieback of the dryland bunchgrass Eragrostis curvula (weeping lovegrass) reexamined: The experimental clearance of tussock centres. Journal of Arid Environments. 46(1): 69-78. [73611]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Seedling establishment and plant growth

More info for the terms: competition, cover, density, interference, litter, presence, tussock

Seedling establishment and plant growth: Several anecdotal references report that weeping lovegrass establishes easily from seed and that seedlings show "strong vigor" and provide ground cover rapidly [4,52]. Seedling survival and growth may be reduced in clay soils, drought conditions, and by interference from other species.

Seedling survival: Weeping lovegrass seedling survival in field studies varies widely. Nearly 3 years after summer transplanting of 9-week-old weeping lovegrass seedlings in a Sonoran Desert mixed shrubland in southeastern Arizona, survival averaged 22% [24]. Two years after 6- to 8-week-old weeping lovegrass seedlings were planted in southern Australia sites, survival averaged 92.9%, even though conditions were "very hot and dry" at many sites in the second year. Although survival was high, recruitment was low [120]. In the laboratory, germinated weeping lovegrass seeds did not survive 3 days on dry filter paper [40].

Seedling growth: In the greenhouse, weeping lovegrass seedling dry weight averaged just 3 mg, 90 days after seeding. This growth was much slower than that of other nonnative pasture seedlings, including subterrranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum), common tussock grass (Poa labillardieri), and bulbous canarygrass (Phalaris aquatica), which averaged 18 to 78 mg [16].

Weeping lovegrass seedling development and flowering can vary with site conditions. In west Texas, weeping lovegrass seedling establishment was classified as "good" on sandy soils, "fair" on silty soils, and "poor" on clayey soils [31]. Weeping lovegrass growth and reproduction were better on fine loams than on fine sands when 3 sites in Texas were compared. Seedling growth and reproduction were lowest in Garza County, although annual precipitation was greatest at this site (see table below). Researchers noted that poor seed bed preparation and competition from coastal sandbur (Cenchrus spinifex) plants limited weeping lovegrass growth in this area [65].

Canopy growth and flower production by 1-year-old weeping lovegrass plants on 3 Texas sites (values are averages for 2 planting years) [65]
County Soil texture Annual precipitation for the study period (mm) Leaf canopy height (cm) Flower production (number/m)
Garza fine sand 564 10.2-28.7 0.5-1.2
Lubbock fine loam between 377 and 564 33.9-50.3 22.8-23.7
Terry loamy fine sand 377 33.7-42.9 4.3-6.8

In a follow-up study in Garza County, field densities of up to 65 coastal sandbur plants/m² did not affect weeping lovegrass seedling survival for up to 6 months after seeding. Presence of coastal sandbur, however, did significantly (P<0.05) reduce herbage and seed head production of weeping lovegrass [69].

Weeping lovegrass herbage and seed head production with increasing density of coastal sandbur in Garza County, Texas [69]
Coastal sandbur density (plants/m²) Lovegrass herbage yield (g/m²) Lovegrass seed head density (number/m²)
0 194a 8.0a
30 68b 0.8b
45 55b 0.6b
65 41b 0.5b
Means with different letters within a column are significantly different (P<0.05)

In a greenhouse study, extracts of coastal sandbur and sand shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) did not significantly affect weeping lovegrass germination percentages or seedling shoot growth but did significantly (P<0.05) reduce weeping lovegrass seedling root growth. Extracts of coastal sandbur litter reduced seedling root growth 21% compared to the control, while sand shinnery oak extracts reduced root growth by 92% [69].

  • 4. Anderson, Darwin; Hamilton, Louis P.; Reynolds, Hudson G.; Humphrey, Robert R. 1953. Reseeding desert grassland ranges in southern Arizona. Bulletin 249. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 32 p. [4439]
  • 16. Campbell, M. H. 1985. Germination, emergence and seedling growth of Hypericum perforatum L. Weed Research. 25(4): 259-266. [50694]
  • 24. Cox, Jerry R.; Madrigal, Reynaldo D.; Frasier, Gary W. 1987. Survival of perennial grass transplants in the Sonoran Desert of the southwestern U.S.A. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation. 1: 77-87. [705]
  • 31. Dahl, Bill E.; Cotter, Paul F.; Wester, David B.; Britton, Carlton M. 1986. Grass seeding in west Texas. In: Smith, Loren M.; Britton, Carlton M., eds. Research highlights--1986 Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 17. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University: 8-15. [3659]
  • 40. Frasier, Gary W. 1987. Soil moisture availability effects on seed germination and germinated seed survival of selected warm season grasses. In: Frasier, Gary W.; Evans, Raymond A., eds. Seed and seedbed ecology of rangeland plants: proceedings of symposium; 1987 April 21-23; Tucson, AZ. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 192-198. [3703]
  • 52. Hoover, Max M.; Hein, M. A.; Dayton, William A.; Erlanson, C. O. 1948. The main grasses for farm and home. In: Grass: The yearbook of agriculture--1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 639-700. [1190]
  • 65. Marietta, K. L.; Britton, C. M. 1989. Establishment of seven high yielding grasses on the Texas High Plains. Journal of Range Management. 42(2): 289-294. [23705]
  • 69. Matizha, William; Dahl, Bill E. 1991. Factors affecting weeping lovegrass seedling vigor on shinnery oak range. Journal of Range Management. 44(3): 223-227. [61683]
  • 120. Waters, C. M.; Garden, D. L.; Smith, A. B.; Friend, D. A.; Sanford, P.; Auricht, G. C. 2005. Performance of native and introduced grasses for low-input pastures. 1. Survival and recruitment. Rangeland Journal. 27(1): 23-39. [73640]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Germination

More info for the term: litter

Weeping lovegrass seeds germinate best when temperatures are warm, seeds are on the soil surface, and/or after 2 consecutive days of moisture. Seeds germinate in light or dark conditions. Germination of weeping lovegrass on burned sites or following high temperature or smoke treatments is discussed in Fire adaptations and plant response to fire.

Temperature and light: Increased temperatures are typically associated with increased weeping lovegrass germination. After 12 days in controlled conditions, germination of weeping lovegrass was 2% to 96% at temperatures of 59 to 86 °F (15-30 °C). Germination of the 2 weeping lovegrass cultivars increased with each 3-degree increase in temperature [67]. Weeping lovegrass seeds collected from New South Wales, Australia, failed to germinate at alternating temperatures of 36 and 50 °F (2/10 °C). Germination was 69% to 91% when temperatures alternated between 63 and 100 °F (17/40 °C) and 45 and 68 °F (7/20 °C). Germination was best (91%) at alternating temperatures of 68 and 100 °F (20/40 °C) [70]. Weeping lovegrass seed failed to germinate in the greenhouse when soil temperatures were 100 °F (38 °C) [125], suggesting that there are minimum and maximum soil temperature thresholds for weeping lovegrass germination. In other studies, researchers estimated that weeping lovegrass germination requires temperatures above 51.4 °F (10.8 °C) [54] and that dormancy may be induced after 1 to 2 weeks with partial darkness and temperatures below 64 °F (18 °C) [112].

The importance of light in weeping lovegrass germination decreased with increased storage time for seeds collected in Wagga Wagga, Australia. About 50% of seeds germinated immediately after harvest; the rest germinated within a month of harvest. Although germination was generally better in the light than in the dark, after 56 months of storage, weeping lovegrass germination was 56.5% in the light and 57.5% in dark [70].

Burial: During field studies, weeping lovegrass seed on the soil surface germinated best [25]. Thick litter and burial by more than 2 inches (5 cm) of soil may severely limit emergence [33]. In silty clay loam and sandy loam soils in southeastern Arizona, weeping lovegrass seedling emergence decreased with increasing planting depths. Emergence was 71% for seed on the soil surface, 47% at 0.2-inch (0.5 cm) depths, and 24% at 0.8-inch (2 cm) depths. Emergence was greater in sandy loam than in silty clay loam [25].

Moisture: Greenhouse and field studies suggest that the amount of moisture may not be as important as duration of moisture to weeping lovegrass seed germination. In the greenhouse, 2 consecutive days of moisture were required for emergence when soil temperatures were 75 or 86 °F (24 or 30 °C). Emergence rate decreased as the number of dry days between moisture applications increased (r² =0.88 at 86 °F (30 °C) and 0.99 at 75 °F (24 °C)), and earlier emerging seedlings survived longer than later emerging seedlings. In the field in Garza County, Texas, weeping lovegrass failed to emerge from dry sandy soils 10 days after 11 mm of rain, but seedlings did emerge after 2 consecutive days of rain (19 mm total) [125]. In West Texas when the temperature was 75 °F (24 °C), 2 consecutive days of at least 0.6 inch (15 mm) of moisture were required for weeping lovegrass germination of at least 50%. Once seedlings emerged, additional moisture was required within 2 days for seedlings to survive at least 7 days [124].

Laboratory studies found decreases in weeping lovegrass seed germination as soil water potential decreased; however, results of these studies are difficult to compare due to differences in methodology. When weeping lovegrass seeds were planted in clayey soil and incubated at 70 °F (21 °C), emergence was 46% at a soil water potential of -0.03 MPa, and 39% when the soil was drier (-0.3 MPa soil water potential) [131]. Germination of weeping lovegrass seeds collected from New South Wales, Australia, decreased as water potential decreased. Seeds were placed on filter paper moistend with deionized water mixed with varying amounts of polyethylene glycol to adjust water potential. Weeping lovegrass germination rates were approximately 70% at a water potential of -0.5 MPa, 20% at -1.0 MPa, and 0% at -1.5 MPa [70].

  • 25. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin, Martha H. 1984. Effects of planting depth and soil texture on the emergence of four lovegrasses. Journal of Range Management. 37(3): 204-205. [73587]
  • 33. Dalrymple, R. L. 1970. Weeping lovegrass establishment and management of first year stands. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 21-27. [73830]
  • 54. Jordan, Gilbert L.; Haferkamp, Marshal R. 1989. Temperature responses and calculated heat units for germination of several range grasses and shrubs. Journal of Range Management. 42(1): 41-45. [6083]
  • 67. Martin, Martha H.; Cox, Jerry R. 1984. Germination profiles of introduced lovegrasses at six constant temperatures. Journal of Range Management. 37(6): 507-509. [73644]
  • 70. Maze, K. M.; Koen, T. B.; Watt, L. A. 1993. Factors influencing the germination of 6 perennial grasses of central New South Wales. Australian Journal of Botany. 41(1): 79-90. [73629]
  • 112. Voight, P. W. 1973. Induced seed dormancy in weeping lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula. Crop Science. 13(1): 76-79. [73637]
  • 124. Wester, David B.; Dahl, B. E. 1979. Best times for seeding weeping lovegrass in west Texas. In: Sosebee, Ronald E.; Wright, Henry A.; eds. Research highlights--1979: Noxious brush and weed control; range and wildlife management. Volume 10. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences: 23-24. [38997]
  • 125. Wester, David B.; Dahl, Bill E.; Cotter, Paul F. 1986. Effects of pattern and amount of simulated rainfall on seedling dynamics of weeping lovegrass and kleingrass. Agronomy Journal. 78(5): 851-855. [73614]
  • 131. Wright, D. L.; Blaser, R. E.; Woodruff, J. M. 1978. Seedling emergence as related to temperature and moisture tension. Agronomy Journal. 70: 709-712. [45565]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Seed banking

More info for the term: litter

In the following studies, weeping lovegrass seed was recovered from soil samples but persistence of these seeds in the seed bank was unknown. In Arizona's Oracle State Park and Appleton-Whittel Research Ranch, weeping lovegrass made up 17% of the relative abundance of seedlings emerging from soil collections. Weeping lovegrass seed was abundant in the litter layer and in the top 2 inches (5 cm) of soil. Average seed number was not significantly different between the litter layer, 0- to 0.8-inch (2 cm) depths, or 0.8- to 2-inch (2-5 cm) soil depths but was greatest (slightly >1,000 seeds/m²) in the top soil layer. Weeping lovegrass seedlings also emerged from soil collected from sites where it did not occur in the aboveground vegetation [83]. In central Arizona, the greatest number of weeping lovegrass seedlings emerged after scarification of soil samples collected beneath Pringle manzanita (Arctostaphylos pringlei). Weeping lovegrass seedlings also emerged from soil samples that were burned, had their litter layer left intact, or had their litter layer removed. Intact soil samples were treated after they were removed from the site [45]. For additional information on weeping lovegrass seed survival on burned sites, see Postfire seed survival and seedling establishment.
  • 45. Glendenington, G. E.; Pase, C. P. 1964. Effects of litter treatment on germination of species found under manzanita. Journal of Range Management. 17: 265-266. [5701]
  • 83. Ortiz-Barney, Elena. 2005. Seed banks in desert grasslands and implications for management with an application to education and outreach. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. 108 p. Thesis. [73655]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Pollination and breeding system

More info for the term: apomixis

Weeping lovegrass produces seed through self fertilization of sexual plants or by apomixis [41,113]. Apomixis is considered more common than sexual reproduction by Voight and Bashaw [113], but Fryxell [41] reports that weeping lovegrass only reproduces sexually through self-fertilization.
  • 41. Fryxell, Paul A. 1957. Mode of reproduction of higher plants. Botanical Review. 23: 135-233. [67749]
  • 113. Voight, P. W.; Bashaw, E. C. 1976. Facultative apomixis in Eragrostis curvula. Crop Science. 16(6): 803-806. [73636]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Regeneration Processes

More info for the term: breeding system

Weeping lovegrass reproduces by seed. Although a type of vegetative regeneration during wet, warm weather is described in a review by Crider [27], this process was not described elsewhere. See Vegetative regeneration for details.
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)

More info on this topic.

More info for the terms: hemicryptophyte, therophyte

Raunkiaer [89] life form:
Hemicryptophyte
Therophyte
  • 89. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. [2843]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life Form

More info for the term: graminoid

Graminoid

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Fire Regime Table

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Seed dispersal

Weeping lovegrass seeds are small but lack appendages that aid burial or long-distance wind dispersal [20], so short-distance seed dispersal is primarily the result of gravity and wind. Dispersal of weeping lovegrass seed in flood waters was observed on the Jornada Experimental Range [9]. Although seed dispersal by animals was not specifically reported, seed tranport in animal fur, feather, or hooves seems possible. Seed bank studies (below) suggest that although weeping lovegrass seed is not adapted for long-distance dispersal, seeds have moved to nearby sites.
  • 9. Barrow, Jerry R. 1992. Use of floodwater to disperse grass and shrub seeds on native arid lands. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 167-169. [19114]
  • 20. Clarke, S.; French, K. 2005. Germination response to heat and smoke of 22 Poaceae species from grassy woodlands. Australian Journal of Botany. 53(5): 445-454. [73585]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Seed production

Prolific and early seed production is common in weeping lovegrass stands. Given favorable climate and site conditions, weeping lovegrass may flower in its first year [95]. During studies conducted in Oklahoma, established and actively managed weeping lovegrass stands occassionally produced 2 seed crops per year: a large crop in late June and a much smaller crop in September or October. These stands were fertilized and irrigated [2]. Weeping lovegrass panicles may produce 300 to 1,000 seeds [27]. Information on flower production by first-year plants is also presented in Seedling growth.

Several factors may affect weeping lovegrass seed production, although quantitative information on this topic is sparse, and studies were often conducted in actively managed stands. Shade can decrease seed production [34]. Moist conditions and/or high nitrogen levels may increase seed production [2]. In a review, Crider [27] suspects that high humidities and high temperatures may limit seed production, because weeping lovegrass seed crops in southern Texas and southern Florida are typically small. High temperatures and low humidities or low temperatures and high humidities are thought to increase seed production, because seed production is often high in the southwestern United States and the Pacific Northwest. Increased moisture and soil fertility are also associated with increased weeping lovegrass seed production. In Woodward, Oklahoma, weeping lovegrass produced 320 to 450 lbs of seed/acre on an irrigated site and 60 to 140 lbs of seed/acre on a nonirrigated site. On poor, badly eroded soils, just 50 to 100 lbs of seed/acre was produced [27].

  • 2. Ahring, Robert M. 1970. Seed production, weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula (Shrad.) Nees, in Oklahoma. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 133-140. [73832]
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 34. Dalrymple, R. L. 1976. Weeping lovegrass management. Ardmore, OK: Noble Foundation, Agriculture Division. 19 p. [73816]
  • 95. Shoop, M. C.; McIlvain, E. H. 1970. Growth patterns of weeping lovegrass and how they relate to management. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 1-9. [73829]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Cyclicity

Phenology

More info on this topic.

In the south-central United States, weeping lovegrass produces green growth 2 to 4 weeks before most native grasses. Growth begins in the spring when minumum temperatures exceed 50 °F (10 °C) [26,34]. In Woodward, Oklahoma, weeping lovegrass produced some green growth in March, but growth was slow until April [95]. In Oklahoma, weeping lovegrass may be green as late as mid- to late November [34].

Weeping lovegrass flowering dates are earliest in the eastern United States (April-June) [21,88]. In the central United States, weeping lovegrass typically flowers from May to August [37,47], which is earlier than the flowering dates reported for the western United States (July-October) [28,81]. Additional information on seasonal development is presented in Seed production.

  • 47. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. [1603]
  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 28. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1977. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 6: The Monocotyledons. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p. [719]
  • 34. Dalrymple, R. L. 1976. Weeping lovegrass management. Ardmore, OK: Noble Foundation, Agriculture Division. 19 p. [73816]
  • 37. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany, No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 81. Munz, Philip A. 1974. A flora of southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1086 p. [4924]
  • 88. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
  • 95. Shoop, M. C.; McIlvain, E. H. 1970. Growth patterns of weeping lovegrass and how they relate to management. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 1-9. [73829]
  • 21. Clewell, Andre F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida Panhandle. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press. 605 p. [13124]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Molecular Biology and Genetics

Molecular Biology

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Eragrostis curvula

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 0
Specimens with Barcodes: 2
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Eragrostis chloromelas

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 0
Specimens with Barcodes: 1
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Statistics of barcoding coverage: Eragrostis jeffreysii

Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLDS) Stats
Public Records: 0
Specimens with Barcodes: 2
Species With Barcodes: 1
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© Barcode of Life Data Systems

Source: Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD)

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

Information on state-level noxious weed status of weeping lovegrass in the United States is available at Plants Database.

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: TNR - Not Yet Ranked

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: NNA - Not Applicable

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: GNR - Not Yet Ranked

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Status

Please consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s current status (e.g. threatened or endangered species, state noxious status, and wetland indicator values).

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Pests and potential problems

There are no serious pests of weeping lovegrass.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Impacts and Control

More info for the terms: allelopathy, cover, density, fire management, forb, forbs, invasive species, natural, nonnative species, phase, presence, shrub, shrubs, tussock

Introduction and spread: Because weeping lovegrass establishes easily and grows rapidly on harsh sites, it was seeded or planted on mine spoils, along roadsides, active sand dunes, and severely disturbed sites nearly throughout the United States. In some seeded areas, weeping lovegrass has not spread far from its introduction site, but in others, it has expanded its range into natural and sometimes sensitive habitats. Site characteristics that allow for or promote weeping lovegrass spread were not described in the available literature as of 2009.

Mines: Weeping lovegrass can rapidly provide ground cover on mine sites. It tolerates extremely acidic soils and the presence of many heavy metals. Some report that weeping lovegrass escapes easily from mine sites [8], while others indicate that it "gradually gives way to other perennial species" [111]. On abandoned manganese mine lands in southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee, weeping lovegrass cover was considered excellent soon after seeding. These mines were a major source of nonpoint source water pollution, which weeping lovegrass helped to decrease [80]. On a coal mine spoil in southeastern Kentucky, weeping lovegrass provided most of the early cover, but 3 to 4 years after seeding, tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus) and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), which were also seeded, dominated the site and were "crowding out" weeping lovegrass [110]. When topsoil collected from a mixed-deciduous forest was used in the revegetation of a mine spoil in Campbell County, Tennesse, Wade [115] found that subsequent seeding of nonnative species such as weeping lovegrass decreased the success of native species emerging from the top soil.

Roadsides: The New York State Department of Transportation planted weeping lovegrass along Long Island highways from the 1960s through the 1980s. As of 2000, weeping lovegrass has become established on dry sandy soils in Suffolk County. It has formed monocultures in late-seral old fields and occurs in maritime grasslands in Shinnecock Hills, which are considered a globally rare ecosystem by the New York Natural Heritage program [61].

Unstable sand dunes: During mismanagement of sandy sites in Vermont, trees and other vegetation were removed. Because the sand was actively moving, these sites proved exteremely difficult to revegetate. After many seeding and planting failures, researchers in the 1940s planted weeping lovegrass on these sites. Weeping lovegrass grew rapidly and produced a thick mat of roots [58].

Severely disturbed site: Although not intentionally planted, weeping lovegrass established and produced greater than 1% cover after a seed mix was used in the interior of Hawaii's severely disturbed Kaho'olawe Island in 1988. Weeping lovegrass was likely a contaminant in the seed mixture. Kaho'olawe Island has a long, severe land-use history that includes island warring, slash-and-burn agriculture, overgrazing, and military training. It is the windiest Hawaiian island and receives only 20 inches (500 mm) of annual precipitation. As of 1916, about 30% of the island was "completely denuded", up to 1 foot (3 m) of topsoil was lost, and in the study area, plant cover was less than 2% [118]. During a second revegetation phase in 1990, researchers intentionally seeded weeping lovegrass, which averaged 17% cover by 1996 [135].

Reports vary regarding weeping lovegrass' potential to spread from its introduction site. In a 1988 review, Cox and others [26] report that weeping lovegrass "does not actively colonize adjacent nonplanted sites". In the Apache Highlands ecoregion of Arizona and northern Mexico, the distribution of weeping lovegrass in 2005 approximated the area where it had been seeded in the 1930s [38]. On the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in Arizona, weeping lovegrass that was seeded in 1949 had not spread "far beyond" where it was originally seeded by 1999 (Bock, personal communication cited in [76]). Although weeping lovegrass was planted along roadsides for erosion control in the Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, it had not invaded native plant communities there as of 1998. The planting date was not reported [116]. When weeping lovegrass was seeded on bare, severely eroded sites with infertile, strongly acid subsoils in southeastern Tennessee in the 1940s, the researcher noted that it was "expected to persist and develop greater density, but not to spread beyond the seeded area" [29]. In a 2002 publication, Stevens and Ayers [101] report that weeping lovegrass has "recently erupted" along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon region, and in a 1982 review, Wasser [119] reports that weeping lovegrass has a "strong competitive ability" and may become "weedy without management".

Impacts: Rapid emergence and establishment imply that weeping lovegrass may negatively impact associated vegetation. Persistence of weeping lovegrass suggests that wildlife impacts are possible as well. Following a controlled study, researchers considered weeping lovegrass an "aggressive" species because of its rapid emergence compared to 11 predominantly nonnative grasses and legumes. In a greenhouse study, weeping lovegrass emergence was high at both 70 °F (21 °C) and 82 °F (28 °C) and reached a maximum 1 to 4 days after seeding. Of the 11 species tested, only weeping lovegrass emerged by day 2 at 70 °F (21 °C) [131]. However, in another greenhouse study, weeping lovegrass seedlings averaged only 3 mg of dry weight 90 days after seeding. This growth was much lower than that of other nonnative pasture species such as subterrranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum), common tussock grass (Poa labillardieri), and bulbous canarygrass (Phalaris aquatica), which averaged 18 to 78 mg of dry weight [16]. After multiple studies of planting, growing, and grazing weeping lovegrass, Dalrymple [33] considered established weeping lovegrass plants "very competitive to weedy competition".

Vegetation: Several studies conducted on the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in Arizona indicated lower vegetation diversity in lovegrass (Lehmann lovegrass and weeping lovegrass) stands than in native grasslands or shrublands. During a study in 1984, researchers found that cover of native blue grama, native plains lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia), native forbs, and native shrubs was significantly (P<0.05) greater in areas without lovegrasses. Forb richness and shrub density were also significantly (P<0.05) greater in areas without lovegrasses [12]. In a 1999 study, researchers compared plant species richness in oak (Quercus spp.) savannas, native grasslands, and weeping lovegrass stands. In oak savanna plots, total plant species richness was as high as 134, in native grassland plots was 100, and in weeping lovegrass plots was 58. Native species dominated all plots; there were only 4 nonnative species in all plots. Researchers suggested that superior competitive ability, allelopathy, or earlier initiation of growth in weeping lovegrass could explain the absence of many species from weeping lovegrass plots [76]. When seed banks were compared in burned weeping lovegrass stands and native grasslands in the same area, total seed bank density and seed bank richness were greater in native than in weeping lovegrass grasslands [77].

Wildlife: Several birds and small mammals utilize weeping lovegrass habitats, but often use is lower in weeping lovegrass than in native habitats. Areas seeded to weeping lovegrass in Texas as part of the conservation reserve program to reduce soil erosion are considered important habitat for arthropods, which are important to grassland birds [75]. On the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in Arizona, total grasshopper abundance was 44% lower in lovegrass-dominated than in native grasslands, but the largeheaded grasshopper (Phoetaliotes nebrascensis) was significantly (P<0.02) more abundant in lovegrasses than in native grasses [12]. The importance of weeping lovegrass to insects is discussed more in Insects.

On the 3-Bar Game Management Area on the Tonto National Forest, breeding bird species richness and density were greatest in willow (Salix spp.)-dominated riparian sites, followed by chaparral vegetation. Lovegrass-dominated grasslands supported the lowest breeding bird species richness and diversity [105]. On the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, total bird counts in lovegrasses were about half those in native desert grasslands (P<0.001). Scaled quail, northern mockingbirds, loggerhead shrikes, Cassin's sparrows, Brewer's sparrows, vesper sparrows, grasshopper sparrows, and eastern meadowlarks were all significantly (P<0.01) more abundant in native grasslands than in lovegrass-dominated grasslands. However, Botteri's sparrow preferred lovegrass habitats [11].

Most rodent species on the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch were significantly more abundant in native grasslands than in lovegrass-dominated grasslands (P<0.05), although the most common rodent, the hispid cotton rat, was significantly more abundant in lovegrasses than in native grasses (P<0.001) [12]. For more on animal use of weeping lovegrass, see Importance to Livestock and Wildlife.

Control: As of 2009, very few references provided information on the control of weeping lovegrass. On sites where weeping lovegrass was introduced to reduce erosion potential its removal may lead to increased erosion. At Arizona's Tonto National Monument, removal of weeping lovegrass would likely trigger erosion, so Phillips [85] suggested mowing or clipping plants to deplete the seed bank, while seeding native species to promote the replacement of weeping lovegrass by native species.

Fire: For information on the use of prescribed fire to control weeping lovegrass, see Fire Management Considerations.

Prevention: 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 [64,94]. This may be best done by discontinuing the use of weeping lovegrass on disturbed or burned sites. Managing to maintain the integrity of the native plant community and to mitigate the factors enhancing ecosystem invasibility is likely to be more effective than managing solely to control the invader [51].

  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 16. Campbell, M. H. 1985. Germination, emergence and seedling growth of Hypericum perforatum L. Weed Research. 25(4): 259-266. [50694]
  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 29. Cummings, W. H. 1947. Weeping lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula, seeding test results in the Copper Basin. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 39(6): 522-529. [73623]
  • 33. Dalrymple, R. L. 1970. Weeping lovegrass establishment and management of first year stands. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 21-27. [73830]
  • 58. Kelly, Joseph B.; Midgley, A. R.; Varney, K. E. 1948. Revegetation of sandblows in Vermont. Bulletin 542. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont and State Agricultural College; Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station. 16 p. [73835]
  • 61. Lamont, Eric E.; Young, Stephen M. 2002. Noteworthy plants reported from the Torrey Range--2001. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 129(4): 363-371. [73596]
  • 80. Muncy, Jack A. 1989. Reclamation of abandoned manganese mines in southwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee. In: Walker, D. G.; Powter, C. B.; Pole, M. W., compilers. Proceedings of the conference: Reclamation, a global perspective; 1989 August 27-31; Calgary, AB. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council: 199-208. [14355]
  • 101. Stevens, Lawrence E.; Ayers, Tina. 2002. The biodiversity and distribution of exotic vascular plants and animals in the Grand Canyon region. In: Tellman, Barbara, ed. Invasive exotic species in the Sonoran region. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press; The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: 241-265. [48667]
  • 110. Vogel, Willis G. 1973. The effect of herbaceous vegetation on survival and growth of trees planted on coal-mine spoils. In: Research and applied technology symposium on mined-land reclamation: Proceedings; 1973 March 7-8; Pittsburgh, PA. Monroeville, PA: Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.: 197-207. [21268]
  • 118. Warren, Steven D.; Aschmann, Stefanie G. 1993. Revegetation strategies for Kaho'olawe Island, Hawaii. Journal of Range Management. 46(5): 462-466. [73613]
  • 119. Wasser, Clinton H. 1982. Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the West. FWS/OBS-82/56. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. 347 p. Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161; PB-83-167023. [2458]
  • 131. Wright, D. L.; Blaser, R. E.; Woodruff, J. M. 1978. Seedling emergence as related to temperature and moisture tension. Agronomy Journal. 70: 709-712. [45565]
  • 135. Ziegler, Alan D.; Warren, Steven D.; Perry, J. Lyman; Giambelluca, Thomas W. 2000. Reassessment of revegetation strategies for Kaho'olawe Island, Hawai'i. Journal of Range Management. 53(1): 106-113. [69223]
  • 51. Hobbs, Richard J.; Humphries, Stella E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 9(4): 761-770. [44463]
  • 11. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1988. Grassland birds in southeastern Arizona: impacts of fire, grazing, and alien vegetation. In: Goriup, Paul D., ed. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds; 1986 June; Kingston, ON. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 7. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation: 43-58. [27613]
  • 12. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H.; Jepson, Karen L.; Ortega, Joseph C. 1986. Ecological effects of planting African lovegrasses in Arizona. National Geographic Research. 2(4): 456-463. [48085]
  • 38. Enquist, Carolyn A. F.; Gori, David F. 2005. An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of grasslands in the Apache Highlands ecoregion. In: Gottfried, Gerald J.; Gebow, Brooke S.; Eskew, Lane G.; Edminster, Carleton B., comps. Connecting mountain islands and desert seas: biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II; 2004 May 11-15; Tucson, AZ. Proceedings RMRS-P-36. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 359-363. [61755]
  • 64. Mack, Richard N.; Simberloff, Daniel; Lonsdale, W. Mark; Evans, Harry; Clout, Michael; Bazzaz, Fakhri A. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications. 10(3): 689-710. [48324]
  • 75. McIntyre, N. E.; Thompson, T. R. 2003. A comparison of conservation reserve program habitat plantings with respect to arthropod prey for grassland birds. The American Midland Naturalist. 150(2): 291-301. [73598]
  • 76. McLaughlin, Steven P.; Bowers, Janice E. 2006. Plant species richness at different scales in native and exotic grasslands in southeastern Arizona. Western North American Naturalist. 66(2): 209-221. [64525]
  • 77. McLaughlin, Steven P.; Bowers, Janice E. 2007. Effects of exotic grasses on soil seed banks in southeastern Arizona grasslands. Western North American Naturalist. 67(2): 206-218. [67953]
  • 85. Phillips, Barbara G. 1992. Status of non-native plant species, Tonto National Monument, Arizona. Technical Report NPS/WRUA/NRTR-92/46. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona, School of Renewable Natural Resources, Cooperative National Park Resources Study Unit. 25 p. [20965]
  • 94. Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 69-72. [35711]
  • 105. Szaro, Robert C. 1981. Bird population responses to converting chaparral to grassland and riparian habitats. The Southwestern Naturalist. 26(3): 251-256. [13675]
  • 111. Vogel, Willis G. 1981. A guide for revegetating coal minesoils in the eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-68. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 190 p. [15575]
  • 115. Wade, G. L. 1989. Grass competition and establishment of native species from forest soil seed banks. Landscape and Urban Planning. 17: 135-149. [6745]
  • 116. Walker, Joan. 1998. Ground layer vegetation in longleaf pine landscapes: an overview for restoration and management. In: Kush, John S., comp. Ecological restoration and regional conservation strategies: The longleaf pine ecosystem restoration symposium at the 9th annual international conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration: Proceedings; 1997 November 12-15: Fort Lauderdale, FL. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 3. Auburn, AL: The Longleaf Alliance: 2-13. [49261]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Cultivars, improved and selected materials (and area of origin)

‘A-67’, ‘Ermelo’, and ‘Morpa’. Seed is commercially available from most of the large seed companies.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Because of its short duration, there is no management required for weeping lovegrass. It is palatable to livestock and should be protected where this possibility exists.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems

Benefits

Importance to Livestock and Wildlife

More info for the terms: cover, ecotype, litter

Cattle and deer feed on weeping lovegrass in its nonnative US range. Several small mammals and birds utilize weeping lovegrass habitats, although species richness and abundance may be higher in native grasslands than in weeping lovegrass stands.

Cattle: Most researchers indicate that cattle graze weeping lovegrass primarily in the spring. In Arizona, cattle preferred weeping lovegrass over associated native grasses in the spring [53]. Hoover and others noted that weeping lovegrass was eaten "readily" by cattle in the spring but eaten "sparingly" in the summer [52]. Diggs and others reported that weeping lovegrass was not grazed by cattle when more palatable species were available, but noted that when more palatable species were not available, weeping lovegrass may be grazed nearly to ground level [37]. Cattle can become tender footed if made to walk on the hard stubble that remains in heavily grazed weeping lovegrass stands (Standford, personal communication cited in [37]). See also Palatability and nutritional value.

Deer: In the winter in the southeastern United States, white-tailed deer feed "considerably" on weeping lovegrass [34].

Small mammals: In a near monoculture of weeping lovegrass in Lynn County, Texas, researchers captured 8 small mammal species. Captures of deer mice and hispid pocket mice were most common in areas with low (30-36%) weeping lovegrass cover, and captures of hispid cotton rats and western harvest mice were most common in areas with high (56-69%) weeping lovegrass cover [35]. In the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch in Arizona, most rodent species (western harvest mice, hispid cotton mice, and northern pygmy mice) were significantly (P<0.05) more abundant in native grasslands than in nonnative lovegrass stands. However, the most abundant rodent, the hispid cotton rat, was significantly (P<0.001) more abundant in lovegrass stands than native grasslands [12].

Birds: Southwestern bird species were often rare in weeping lovegrass stands or preferred native grasslands over weeping lovegrass stands. Although most bird species were more abundant in native desert grasslands than in lovegrasses on the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch, Botteri's sparrow was counted more often in lovegrass stands than in native desert grasslands (P<0.001) [11]. Bird nest densities were low in weeping lovegrass stands in central Lynn County, Texas, relative to native grasslands. Researchers located Cassin's sparrow, mourning dove, and common nighthawk nests. Drought conditions (33-57% below average precipitation) prevailed during most of the study [82]. In the southern High Plains of Texas, the grasshopper sparrow was abundant in weeping lovegrass stands [106].

Insects: Weeping lovegrass stands support diverse, abundant, and rare insect populations throughout its southeastern and south-central US range. In Oklahoma, Elateridae and carbid beetles foraged in the "pronounced" litter layer in weeping lovegrass monocultures [36]. In a weeping lovegrass field on the Texas Tech University Farm, researchers found a variety of arthropod families and species utilizing weeping lovegrass habitats [86]. During several entomological surveys in the southern United States, researchers collected a diversity of insects in weeping lovegrass stands. Seldom collected cinch bug (Blissus minutus) adults and nymphs were collected often from weeping lovegrass plants in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas, although this cinch bug was only previously known from Florida. Another rarely collected cinch bug (Toonglasa umbrata) was collected often in weeping lovegrass plants in Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas [128]. A seed bug (Ligyrocoris slossoni) was collected from dead weeping lovegrass stems in Lake County, Florida. This seed bug was last collected in the 1940s [127]. Plant hopper (Amycle vernalis, Cyrpoptus belfragei, C. reineckei, and Rhynchomitra microrhina) nymphs were collected from weeping lovegrass in the southeastern and south-central United States. Researchers noted that insect use of weeping lovegrass as food and habitat may be relatively recent [130]. During studies in the Southeast, rarely collected turtle bugs (Oncozygia clavicornis and Allopodops mississippienses) were found on weeping lovegrass. The researcher noted that dense weeping lovegrass crowns likely offered insect protection. These turtle bugs represent monotypic genera that may or may not be rare. Little information is available on the ecology or abundance of these insects [126].

Palatability and nutritional value: Although the palatability and forage quality of weeping lovegrass typically decrease as plants approach maturity [95], as the growing season progresses, or during drought conditions [27], management activities may improve or maintain palatability and/or nutrition. Some suggest that grazing and fire can be used to maintain weeping lovegrass palatability. Management guidelines for maximum production and livestock weight gains are provided by Dahl and Cotter [30]. At the Texas Tech University Research Farm, cattle utilization and crude protein of weeping lovegrass were greater on winter- or spring-burned than on unburned plots [59]. Crude protein content was greater and neutral detergent fiber was lower on spring-burned than unburned sites for nearly all of the first postfire season in Texas [72]. On other sites in Texas, weeping lovegrass crude protein and digestibility were greater on clipped than unclipped vegetation 30 days after clipping [66].

Weeping lovegrass palatability and nutrition can vary by ecotype or cultivar [26]. For more on the palatability and nutrition of weeping lovegrass, see the review by Crider [27]. For information on the forage quality of weeping lovegrass cultivars harvested at different times, see Voight and others [114].

Cover value: Weeping lovegrass was often introduced into the United States to reduce soil erosion along roadsides, in overgrazed grasslands, and on severely disturbed sites. This topic is discussed more in the Distribution and Occurrence and Introduction and spread sections. Weeping lovegrass monocultures are said to provide excellent cover for rabbits and better-than-average cover for quail (review by [34]). However, Abbott and others [1] reported that weeping lovegrass stands on the southern High Plains of Texas, "appear to have limited value for wildlife", especially quail, because stands typically lack woody vegetation.

  • 26. Cox, Jerry R.; Martin-R, M. H.; Ibarra-F, F. A.; Fourie, J. H.; Rethman, N. F. G.; Wilcox, D. G. 1988. The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. Journal of Range Management. 41(2): 127-139. [69677]
  • 27. Crider, Franklin J. 1945. Three introduced lovegrasses for soil conservation. Circular No. 730. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 90 p. [73815]
  • 30. Dahl, B. E.; Cotter, P. F. 1984. Management of weeping lovegrass in west Texas. Management Note 5. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Range and Wildlife Management. 4 p. [2699]
  • 34. Dalrymple, R. L. 1976. Weeping lovegrass management. Ardmore, OK: Noble Foundation, Agriculture Division. 19 p. [73816]
  • 37. Diggs, George M., Jr.; Lipscomb, Barney L.; O'Kennon, Robert J. 1999. Illustrated flora of north-central Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany, No. 16. Fort Worth, TX: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 1626 p. [35698]
  • 52. Hoover, Max M.; Hein, M. A.; Dayton, William A.; Erlanson, C. O. 1948. The main grasses for farm and home. In: Grass: The yearbook of agriculture--1948. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 639-700. [1190]
  • 95. Shoop, M. C.; McIlvain, E. H. 1970. Growth patterns of weeping lovegrass and how they relate to management. In: Dalrymple, R. L., editor/compiler. Proceedings of the first weeping lovegrass symposium; 1970 April 28-29; Ardmore, OK. NF-F0-00-06. Ardmore, OK: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Agricultural Division: 1-9. [73829]
  • 126. Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 1999. Oncozygia calvicornis Stal and Allopodops mississippiensis Harris and Johnston: association of rarely collected Nearctic turtle bugs (Heteroptera: Pentamoidae: Podopinae) with an introduced African grass. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 101(4): 714-721. [73619]
  • 1. Abbott, Wade; Lucia, Duane; Babbert, C. Brad; Mitchell, Robert B. 2002. Artificial cover structures for quail management on weeping lovegrass CRP. In: Wilde, Gene R.; Smith, Loren M., eds. Research highlights--2002: Range, wildlife, and fisheries management. Volume 33. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources: 13. [43679]
  • 11. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H. 1988. Grassland birds in southeastern Arizona: impacts of fire, grazing, and alien vegetation. In: Goriup, Paul D., ed. Ecology and conservation of grassland birds; 1986 June; Kingston, ON. ICBP Tech. Pub. No. 7. Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation: 43-58. [27613]
  • 12. Bock, Carl E.; Bock, Jane H.; Jepson, Karen L.; Ortega, Joseph C. 1986. Ecological effects of planting African lovegrasses in Arizona. National Geographic Research. 2(4): 456-463. [48085]
  • 35. Davis, S. S.; Mitchell, R. B.; Demarais, S. 2000. Trap-revealed microhabitat use by small mammals in monoculture grasslands. Texas Journal of Science. 52(3): 195-200. [73624]
  • 36. Davis, Stephen Seth. 1998. Effects of prescribed fire on small mammals and beetle assemblages in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) grasslands. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. 55 p. Thesis. [73572]
  • 53. Humphrey, Robert R. 1960. Forage production on Arizona ranges. V. Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz Counties. Bulletin 502. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station. 137 p. [4520]
  • 59. Klett, W. Ellis; Hollingsworth, Dale; Schuster, Joseph L. 1971. Increasing utilization of weeping lovegrass by burning. Journal of Range Management. 24(1): 22-24. [36675]
  • 66. Marietta, Kay L.; Britton, Carlton M.; Cotter, Paul F. 1990. Nutritional parameters of seven improved grasses on the Texas high plains. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 4: 23-30. [18186]
  • 72. McFarland, J. Brent; Mitchell, Robert B. 1997. Spring burning influence on weeping lovegrass forage quality. In: Wester, David B.; Britton, Carlton M., eds. Research highlights--Noxious brush and weed control; range, wildlife, and fisheries management. Volume 28. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources: 19. [28817]
  • 82. Oberheu, Deanna; Mitchell, Rob; Dabbert, Brad; Davis, Seth. 1999. Observations of avian nesting activity in burned and non-burned weeping lovegrass CRP. Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 12(12): 14-17. [73604]
  • 86. Phillips, Sherman A., Jr.; Brown, C. Mark; Cole, Charles L. 1991. Weeping lovegrass, Eragrostis curvula (Schrader) Nees Von Esenbeck, as a harborage of arthropods on the Texas high plains. The Southwestern Naturalist. 36(1): 49-53. [16159]
  • 106. Thompson, Thomas R.; Boal, Clint W.; Lucia, Duane. 2002. Effectiveness of the conservation reserve program's native species seeding requirement in providing summer and winter habitat for grassland birds on the Southern High Plains. In: Wilde, Gene R.; Smith, Loren M., eds. Research highlights--2002: Range, wildlife, and fisheries management. Volume 33. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources: 15. [43683]
  • 114. Voigt, P. W.; Horn, F. P.; Dewald, C. L. 1981. Forage quality response of four lovegrasses to stage, interval, and season of harvest. Agronomy Journal. 73(5): 877-884. [23702]
  • 127. Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 2003. Rediscovery of Ligyrocoris slossoni (Hemiptera: Lygaeoidea: Rhyparochromidae), a rarely collected seed bug considered precinctive in Florida. Florida Entomologist. 86(2): 219-221. [73620]
  • 128. Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 2005. Blissus minutus (Blatchley) and Toonglasa umbrata (Distant): seldom-collected native chinch bugs (Hemiptera: Lygaeoidea: Blissidae) as colonists of the introduced African bunchgrass Eragrostis curvula, and their association with other grasses in the southern United States. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 107(2): 336-345. [73617]
  • 130. Wilson, Stephen W.; Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 2005. An African grass, Eragrostis curvula (Poaceae), planted in the southern United States recruits rarely collected native planthoppers (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea: Dictyopharidea, Fulgoridae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society. 113(3-4): 174-204. [73621]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Uses

Erosion control: Weeping lovegrass is used as a temporary cover for erosion control purposes. On surface mine spoil, it provides almost immediate cover on steep outer slopes where spoil is rather acidic and of low fertility.

Crops: Weeping lovegrass is used as a nurse crop when seeding sericea lespedeza, coastal panic grass, or switchgrass. When seeding black locust or bristly locust, it serves as a companion species.

Public Domain

USDA NRCS Plant Materials Program

Source: USDA NRCS PLANTS Database

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Eragrostis curvula

Eragrostis curvula is a species of grass known by the common name weeping lovegrass. Other common names include Boer lovegrass, curved lovegrass, Catalina lovegrass, and African lovegrass. It is native to southern Africa, and it is present on other continents as an introduced species.[1]

This is usually a long-lived perennial grass, but it is sometimes an annual plant. It is variable in appearance, and there are many different natural and cultivated forms. In general, it forms tufts of stems up to 1.9 metres (6.2 ft) tall. The tufts may reach a diameter of 38 centimetres (1.25 ft). The grass grows from a thick root network. Plants have been noted to have roots penetrating over 4 metres (13 ft) deep in the soil and 3 metres (9.8 ft) laterally. The roots can grow 5 centimetres (2.0 in) per day. The first root to grow into the soil from a seedling can send out up to 60 small rootlets per inch. The dense root system forms a sod. The drooping leaves of the grass are up to 65 centimetres (2.13 ft) long but just a few millimeters wide, and they may have rolled edges. The inflorescence is a panicle with branches lined with centimeter-long spikelets. Each spikelet may contain up to 15 flowers. One panicle may produce 1000 seeds. Cultivated plants may produce two crops of seed per year. The plant self-fertilizes or undergoes apomixis, without fertilization.[1]

This grass is valuable as a forage for livestock in Africa, its native range.[2] There are many ecotypes. Several of these ecotypes were collected and introduced in the United States as cultivars. The grass was first planted in the United States in Stillwater, Oklahoma, in 1935. It was good for livestock, and its massive root network made it a good plant for erosion control. It spread quickly as it was planted for ornamental purposes. It reached New York in the 1960s and in the 1970s and 80s it was planted alongside many highways such as the Long Island Expressway. Today it occurs in wild habitat from the southwestern United States to the East Coast. It can be found in woodlands, chaparral, prairie, grassland, and disturbed areas.[1] It is tolerant of very acidic and very basic soils; it grows easily in mine spoils. This species may hybridize with other Eragrostis, such as Eragrostis caesia, E. lehmanniana, and E. planiculmis.[3]

Cultivars of this grass include 'South African Robusta Blue', 'Witbank', 'Ermelo', 'Kromarrai', 'American Leafy', and 'Renner'. Cultivars may be selected for yield, palatability for livestock, and drought resistance. It is planted along waterways in Sri Lanka and mountainsides in Japan, and it is used for oversowing fields in Argentina. In the United States it is often planted alongside Korean lespedeza.[4] It is planted as a nurse crop for sericea lespedeza, coastal panic grass, and switchgrass.[5]

It is an invasive species in some regions, such as parts of the United States and Victoria and other Australian states.[6] It is aggressive and can crowd out native plants. Its drought resistance helps it to survive in dry environments.[3][7]

In Lesotho, this grass is used to make baskets, brooms, hats, ropes, and candles, and it is used for food, as a charm, and in funeral rituals.[8]

References

  1. ^ a b c Gucker, Corey L. (2009). Eragrostis curvula. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  2. ^ Ncanana, S., et al. (2005). Development of plant regeneration and transformation protocols for the desiccation-sensitive weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula. Plant Cell Rep 24 335-40. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  3. ^ a b Halvorson, W. L. and P. Guertin. (2003). USGS Weeds in the West project: Status of Introduced Plants in Southern Arizona Parks. USGS. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  4. ^ Eragrostis curvula. FAO Plant Profile. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  5. ^ Eragrostis curvula. USDA NRCS Plant Fact Sheet. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  6. ^ Parsons, W. T. and E. G. Cuthbertson. Noxious weeds of Australia. Csiro Publishing 2001.
  7. ^ Eragrostis curvula. USFS Weed of the Week. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
  8. ^ Eragrostis curvula. Purdue University Center for New Crops and Plants Products. Retrieved 12-22-2011.
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Notes

Comments

Eragrostis curvula is a most variable grass, often divided into several varieties or even species. However, these intergrade completely, and the cytology of the group is known to be complex. In the circumstances it seems better to interpret the species in a wide sense than to indicate subdivisions of uncertain practical value.

Eragrostis curvula is widely introduced as a forage and ground cover plant and is occasionally found as an escape.

Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees, Fl. Afr. Austr. 402. 1841, is another South African species introduced into Asia as a forage grass. Similar to Eragrostis curvula but differing by having papery basal sheaths with the nerves less prominent and more widely spaced and wiry culms. It has been erroneously reported from Pakistan (viz. A.K. Khan M8) but as it has been introduced into India it may yet be found here.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Comments

This species is used for fodder and as an ornamental grass.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Boulevard, St. Louis, MO, 63110 USA

Source: Missouri Botanical Garden

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Synonyms

Eragrostis chloromelas Steud. [56]

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees var. conferta Stapf [56]

Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees var. curvula [49]

Eragrostis robusta Stent [108]
  • 49. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. [21992]
  • 56. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]
  • 108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. [34262]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

The scientific name of weeping lovegrass is Eragrostis curvula (Schrad.) Nees (Poaceae) [8,56].
  • 8. Barkworth, Mary E.; Capels, Kathleen M.; Long, Sandy; Piep, Michael B., eds. 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico. Volume 25: Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 783 p. [68091]
  • 56. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. [36715]

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Common Names

weeping lovegrass

Boer lovegrass

curved lovegrass

Catalina lovegrass

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Average rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!