Navigating the “Noxious” and “Invasive” Regulatory Landscape: Suggestions for Improved Regulation

Abstract

In the United States, only species listed on state or federal noxious weed lists are regulated. According to our analysis, these regulatory lists poorly represent invasive plants in unmanaged (i.e., nonagricultural) systems. To improve the representation of invasive plants on state regulatory lists, we recommend allocating listing authority to invasive species councils and provide guidance for the science-based reform of noxious weed lists. We also recommend commercial best practices to test for invasiveness prior to intentional introduction of new plant products. Finally, we introduce a negligence liability scheme to discourage the introduction of potential invaders. If adopted, our recommendations could benefit nonagricultural ecosystems and could have positive consequences for bioenergy producers and others in plant industry, who are under scrutiny for promoting potentially invasive species as energy crops. As the bioenergy industry gains momentum, a revised regulatory regime may alleviate the concerns regarding one potential negative consequence of novel plant introduction.

New pasture plants intensify invasive species risk

“…Here, we take a global perspective to consider whether new pasture taxa are likely to become environmental weeds (hereafter "environmental weed risk") and whether there are mechanisms in place to limit potential risks. Although we focus specifically on the risk of new pasture taxa becoming environmental weeds, we acknowledge that very similar risks, and likely solutions, apply to other systems of production including bioenergy (18,19), carbon sequestration (20), forestry (21), and horticulture (21,22). We find that increased environmental weed risk from new pasture taxa presents a major challenge to increasing livestock production in a way that is consistent with SI (5).…”

Using behavioural science to improve Australia’s environmental regulation

“…In the private sphere, governance interventions include private regulation (e.g. industry codes and standards), social persuasion and sanctions, industry or community segment education and extension, private investment in control, and voluntary projects (Cattanach et al 2013;Quinn et al 2013;Thompson et al 2013). Public regulation is thus only one part of a complex suite of interventions: private regulation, economic influences, and social dynamics are among the governance mechanisms.…”

Stress-Tolerant Feedstocks for Sustainable Bioenergy Production on Marginal Land

“…Some of the crops mentioned in this review have been evaluated as highrisk species and have received attention from environmental groups and invasion ecologists (e.g., Arundo donax, seedbearing Miscanthus spp., Jatropha curcas, Pennisetum purpureum) [265,267,268,[271][272][273][274][275]. Therefore, these and other high invasion-risk crops should only be chosen when they can be grown and transported with strict containment procedures in place [276] and when state and federal regulations allow their introduction and cultivation [277,278]. Other crops in this review, however, are either US natives or have been evaluated as low-risk for invasion in the USA [279].…”

“…In addition, some native species can be pests within their native regions. For example, Helianthus annuus is native to the entire continental USA but is a regulated noxious weed in Iowa due to its negative impacts on agriculture [277]. As such, it will be important for producers to choose biomass crops that are native and/or low-risk in the production region [279].…”