Talk:Bromus tectorum

Untitled

Removed this as it is ridiculous: "It grows rapidly and may produce dry matter at a rate of 2.9 g/mm²/day" (that's the same as 2.9 tonnes per square metre per day). Somewhere there's a few orders of magnitude gone out! - MPF 23:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this stuff has an article! Having grown up in Reno with cheat grass growing on every hill and backyard, I can certainly testify to the plant's incredible ability to infest in an incredibly short amount of time (though not necessarily as fast as was corrected above). Shadowshark (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goszkaar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rediret

Why does cheatgrass redirect to this particular variety of Bromus? Why doesn't it redirect to Bromus instead?Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Appearance in the U.S.?

The article says that cheatgrass was first found in the United States in New York and Pennsylvania in 1861; but if cheatgrass is the same thing as cheat, the weed was known to Virginian wheat-growers much earlier. See, e.g., Farmer's Register, Vol. III (1836), pp. 555-56, for two contributions to the debate as to whether "cheat" were a diseased variety of wheat or a different plant altogether. (Both contributors contend that it is the former. Editor Edmund Ruffin decorously disagrees.) Maybe some more knowledgeable person than I can track that down and, if cheat and cheatgrass turn out to be the same plant, amend the article accordingly. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to article: why it's called "cheat" grass. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromus tectorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bromus tectorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412054533/http://www.tncfire.org/crosscutting_fandi.htm to http://www.tncfire.org/crosscutting_fandi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Class critique

Content • The material feels disjointed, as if built slowly piece by piece without any flow. Can be better focused. • Feels disjointed and hard to read • The topic is only partially covered. There is important information missing. Treatment methods are not being discussed and it is mentioned that that it has altered the fire regime but not how B. tectorum has altered it. The section on B. tectorum and climate change can be improved and clarified. • While they do have primary sources they are before 2010 and the majority of the research started in 2010 and then really picked up in 2015. The sources need to be updated to keep the article up to date • I cannot tell what is referenced or not because they only cite at the end of paragraphs • In some parts it is referred to by its scientific names, some by drooping brome, and some by cheatgrass. This inconstancy compounds the lack of flow that makes it feel like this entry was created in bits and pieces. In the description section there is incorrect information (ie B. tectorum is not a bunch grass). The lead section is short and does not provide a clear overview. There should also be some more background on B. tectorum. Quality • There is no clear introduction • No because it is not clear, and very short • There are headings and subheadings but there use and organization is not consistent • Several sections important to understanding the biology and ecology are missing • The pictures are okay. Two essentially show the same thing though, and an overview of how it makes the area that has been invaded look would be nice. There are no appendices or footnotes • The article is neutral • Yes, but weakly • Yes, the references are either primary sources, university sites, or government sites Goszkaar (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted article

The article is now primarily not about the grass species Bromus tectorum but about its status as a weed in the US. The balance is not appropriate for an international encyclopedia. I guess the "US weed" material could be split off into a separate article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited to pull more of a global view. However, most of the information on Bromus tectorum (including ecology and phenology) come from studies of it as an invasive plant in North America. Almost all of the primary articles from the 1960-2017 on Bromus tectorum are done in the context of effect on the sagebrush ecosystems of the Intermountain West & Canada. While this may not appear balanced globally, this information is important for the Bromus tectorum page and without this information the page would not give a complete picture of the species and its ecology. I agree that it would be nice to have literature included in the article that covers a more global scale, but I have been doing intensive literature research on this species for the past 3 months and have not run across any reputable sources that explore it out of this context. I have found a botanical description from 1964 that I intend to use to flesh out the description and habitat sections. Goszkaar (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]