419product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including
nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture,
irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health,
or the environment.” Under this law, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority
to inspect, seize, and destroy products and quarantine areas to contain or limit the
spread of such plants, including authorization of biological control.
In addition, all but four states have developed their own noxious weed lists , as
have hundreds of US counties. The federal government, as of this writing, had des-
ignated 104 species as noxious, but no Bromus species is among them. Of the 46
states with noxious weed lists, only three have declared a Bromus species as nox-
ious: B. tectorum is classifi ed as noxious in Colorado and Con necticut, and Arkansas
has listed Bromus racemosus L. (bald brome) and Bromus secalinus L. (rye brome).
The lack of noxious weed designation for Bromus species can create a barrier to
control efforts. Kelley et al. ( 2013 ) surveyed land managers in Wyoming and found
that the lack of a state noxious weed designation for B. tectorum was cited as a bar-
rier to management by 34 % of ranchers and 39 % of natural resource professionals.
Lack of a designation means funds cannot be allocated under the Noxious Weed
Control and Eradication Act of 2004 if they are to be used solely for control of
B. tectorum or other Bromus species. As one manager in Wyoming stated in a focus
group conducted by Kelley et al., “One interesting thing with regard to cheatgrass
for me is that my budget is such that, I get money to treat noxious weeds and as of
yet, cheatgrass isn’t a noxious weed” (note: B. tectorum is listed as a noxiou s weed
by fi ve Wyoming counties). The same study found that 77 % of ranchers felt other
weeds were a higher priority than B. tectorum.
When it comes to regulatory policy , all exotic invasive grass species are not cre-
ated equal. B. tectorum is almost universally recognized as an undesirable species.
Novak and Mack ( 2001 ) state that the fi rst report of B. tectorum in North America
came in 1790 from Pennsylvania. Source populations were largely European, and
introduction appears to have been unintentional, with spread closely matching pat-
terns of movement by European immigrant farmers. Likewise, B. rubens fi rst
appeared in herbarium collections in California in 1879 and appears to have been
introduced through seeds brought unintentionally from Europe by immigrants dur-
ing the Gold Rush era (Salo 2005 ). It was seeded near Tucson from 1906 to 1908 for
evaluation of its use as a forage crop, but soon escaped and became established
along the Santa Cruz River (Reid et al. 2008 ). Like B. tectorum , B. rubens has been
recognized as invasive for many decades.
On the other hand, the perennial C3 grass, Bromus inermis Leyss. (smooth
brome), was brought to North America in the 1880s from Hungary and Russia for
soil retention and to provide forage for livestock (Larson et al. 2001 ). Many authors
recognize its tendency to escape from planted habitats in some ecosystems and now
consider it as invasive (e.g., D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992 ; Blankespoor and
Larson 1994 ; Larson et al. 2001 ; Dillemuth et al. 2009 ). It is categorized as an
invasive species in some states and provinces as well as in the Global Invasive
Species Database ( http://www.issg.org/database/welcome ). Yet it continues to be recom-
mended as a forage grass and for erosion control by authorities in some other states;
14 Human Dimensions of Invasive Grasses