Other Offenders

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Cheatgrass is not the only weed invading western rangeland. In Oregon, ecologists are worried about a leafy plant called Russian knapweed. A related plant, spotted knapweed, now covers more than 3.8 million acres in Montana and another million acres is dominated by leafy spurge, according to a January 2001 report prepared by the Montana Weed Control Association.

Although most of these weeds are less of a fire hazard than cheatgrass is, scientists do not see them as a better option. For one, knapweeds are more poisonous than cheatgrass is. "The cheatgrass at least provides some forage, if you¿re raising livestock" says Tony Svejcar, a researcher for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Once the knapweeds come in, they basically have zero forage value."

Unlike cheatgrass, which can live alongside native plants such as sagebrush, knapweeds will eliminate most other plants in the area. Indeed, some researchers believe that Russian knapweed is allelopathic, which means the weed releases a chemical that suppresses other vegetation. Other scientists are dubious of this idea, preferring the hypothesis that the weeds are simply better competitors for natural resources. Nevertheless, invasive weeds are a persistent threat to rangeland ecology. Steve Dewey, an extension weed specialist at Utah State University, believes the new invasive weeds present an even greater threat than cheatgrass. He notes, "When something will crowd out cheatgrass, that¿s really bad stuff." -- D.W.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.



Back to Forgotten Flames

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe