Invasive plant list according to the state which you live

http://enature.com/native_invasive/natives.asp

Great website which shows a list of invasive plants (plus other lists) according to your state.

Wow! Great link! I've been doing a ton of seaches on invasives lately and that link has never turned up in any of them. How did you come across it? Do you know what the little red circle icon means by some of the plants?

This message was edited Nov 19, 2004 10:29 PM

Pville,

I believe the red icon refers to a "dangers" of the plant.

The website was sent to me from another teacher via a science listserv.

I'm glad you found it useful too!

Thank You.

Thats a neat site. I did a search for MS and turned up 55 invasives. I'm amazed that some of the ones that i consider invasive didnt show up on the list.
THanks for posting it
jen

You are lucky then! 104 for Ohio and I think half of them are in my yard. LOL One was even butterfly bush.

Very nice site! Thanks!

Gee, and to think we pay good money for butterfly bushes & burning bushes here in Iowa. Amazing!

Osteole, I tried entering the site, but it requires giving them my email address for newsletters and special offers. Is there a way to get around this?

Weeze, if you don't want to give your email addy just make up random letters for the box. xxx@aa.com or something.

Hadn't thought of that, Sweezel... you old pirate, you!

LOL
I know, it's terribly dishonest. ;) I can't take credit though. Actually the MIS dept. in my company got tired of employees using their work e-mail in instances like this when they had no home e-mail and suggested it. It works.

My teens give fake emails whenever they go into gaming sights to foil the flood of spam email. I even have a yahoo email I use & rarely check when I have to confirm something but don't want the junk mail.

Kewl site! Although there are 172 invasives listed for WA (yikes!), many of them are on the 'other side of the hill' (the Cascades) and not particularly invasive here in the more arid eastern side. :)

One thing I really enjoyed was being able to narrow down and identify the local species for plants that thrive throughout North America.

Thank you!
Donna

You know, I've been wondering lately on DG...when folks read the word "invasive" do you think a good number of gardeners immediately think of it becoming a nuisance in their own garden, creating tedious weeding, ect. without realizing that we really are not just warning them that the plant might be high-maintenance?

When I first started learning about plants, all "invasive" meant to me was that I'd better really want it if I was going to plant it, because it would probably take more work/attention that another plant. Invasive meant it wouldn't just stay where you planted it.
I had no idea of the major ecological ramifications of planting invasive species at the time.

Fellow DGers, "invasive" is not just a synonym for "high-maintenance". It means the plant can literally wreck natural areas and habitats, AND the gardener cannot possibly control its spread completely.

Let's Garden Responsibly
Friends Dont's Let Friends Garden Invasively
(no matter how pretty the flower is)

--Hugs :)

hugahosta, the problem with labeling plants as being invasive in a general sense is that they may cause havoc in one region, but not another. As many of the gardeners on DG can tell you, a plant I would consider a weed, such as our fireweed, must be nurtured quite carefully to grow in warmer climes. http://davesgarden.com/pdb/go/1348/index.html

This plant is native to Alaska, it spreads like crazy by underground shoots, and I would never dream of planting it in my garden. However, it is a beautiful plant on the perimeters of my yard, along the roadsides, etc. I think it's a good thing we have a box to check in the PDB entries concerning 'may be invasive'. That really says it all... it may be invasive... not is.

They actually have peach trees listed as an invasive here in Georgia- which is known as the Peach State- LOL!!!! Anyone who has ever grown one knows they are not that easy to grow and flourish. I have never heard anyone mention peach trees as invasive other than at this site.

They also have crepe myrtles listed. I have never saw one growing in the wild- never saw any hedgerows of crepes. Anyone with any unwanted crepes are welcome to give them to me.

Hmmm, I noticed (at least for Colorado) that the weed species are marked as non-native, introduced or not at all. Of those not marked, I picked out 10 in the first 6 pages that are introduced species. Widely naturalized, but non-native to the US all the same. Can’t seem to find any clarification about this on the site.

Hoping no one gets the idea that some or all of those weeds NOT marked in any way are native species!! The ones I found are not.

And do remember that the invasive plants listed on this site are *suggestions* for plants that are best not planted in the garden; it does not accurately reflect species that are officially listed as weeds to be controlled in your state (and was not designed to be)!!!
It is however, food for thought when browsing for plants and further research is always needed imho to make a determination....

Thanks for the clarification, caron. It seems there should be some common definitions for these terms. I've also wondered how long a plant has to live somewhere to be considered a 'native'.

Weezingreens,

For a plant to be considered native..it has to predate the settlement of North America by Europeans, or Peoples from other continents. That's the strict definition of Native plant. "Wildflowers" can be anything considered pleasing to the eye that grows in a field, but they're not necessarily native. April

I suppose that makes it rather sketchy for many of us. People from other continents have been visiting North American long before the term Europeans was even used! It sure doesn't seem like an exact science, does it.

I find it pretty exact, actually. The generally accepted definition for native plant seems to be plants that were here pre-dating settlement by Europeans, because they were the main ones who brought plants and animals from there to here to start an agriculturally based society. Also, it is quite comforting when you're a long way from home to have familiar plants and animals about, I would think.

I think the indigenous peoples who were here east of the Mississippi were generally hunter/gatherer types, west of the Mississippi they followed herds of buffalo and made their living from them, and in the southwest, they were practicing agriculture with plants/seed obtained from people further south..maize, pumpkins, beans, etc. In the Northwest I believe native peoples had a fishing based society.

There were other people from other continents who visited, but they didn't stay, excepting the ancestors of the Inuit, who walked over from what is now Russia and kinda liked it here and stayed. I don't think they practiced agriculture, but were more of a fishing type society.

I'm trying to remember all this from my history classes, so forgive me if I'm wrong. April

I'm sure you've studied this more than I have, April, but I'm just considering this from a layman's point of view. I would say that even ancient 'tourists' carried seeds with them for food, especially if feeding any animals they may have taken along. This could easily have pre-dated European settlers.

Being an old gal, I can recall when it was proposed that North American natives originated from the European/Asian continent, crossing a land mass that connected us along the Bearing Straits. Since the advent of DNA testing, they've determined that Inuits in Russia and North America are indeed related, but the other native Americans from the Northern Hemisphere were not descendants, except for some slight connection to Navajo (if my old memory serves me!).

I mention this because science is often based on an original hypothesis, then changed later when more information is available. I understand that some sort of base must be established to follow a scientific study, but having seen so may changes in plant nomenclature, I can't help wondering if our understanding of indigenous plants is 'exact'.

I also wonder this too! However, I do know for sure that lots of plants people plant(and I do, too) are not native to this continent. I try to plant mostly plants in my yard that fit the latest and so far the longest accepted definition of what a native plant is. In the Victorian era, lots of plants and animals were brought from Europe. It was the next big push(after the settling of the continent)of species introduction into North America. It was also the next big push of species extinction here. There were also lots of people immigrating at that time and bringing "pieces of home" along with them. Sometimes, this had disastrous results for native flora and fauna. This is where we get gypsy moths, English House Sparrows, Starlings, and most of our common garden plants from. The introduction of the English House Sparrow and Starling and the Gypsy Moth have quite interesting stories, but they're kinda long and I don't want to bore any more people than I already have!

DNA studies are helping us to determine what species are native, and those that aren't. Also, soil core samples taken in virgin prairies and woods can help to determine what was here originally, too.

I don't mean to be contradictory, Weezin, and I apologise if it seems that way! This is my life's study and passion, but I'm not a native plant purist by any stretch. I won't give up my Irises for nuttin'! I just make sure I don't plant invasive plants. Native or introduced. April

No apology necessary, April. I don't see any contradiction here, either. I grow both domestic and 'native' plants in my yard. We live at the foot of mountains, and there is a wealth of alpine plants in our woods and hillsides. As far as civilization goes, we're practically youngsters here, if you begin native plants with the time of European settlers. Alaska is a huge state with all sorts of climates and all sorts of soils. While Seward is gravel based with a bit of composted material on it, the Mat-Valley is beautiful rich loam. Our summers in Southeastern Alaska are mild, whereas the summers in the Interior can be scorching.

I mention this because even within the state of Alaska, a plant introduced into one part of the state might be perfectly manageable, even a failure, whereas it might be a problem in another part of the state. Our fireweed lives in harmony with the oxe-eye daisies and the dandelions along our roadsides. One year, the arnica will thrive along roadsides, the next the oxe-eyes, etc. Perhaps the difference here is that we still have the option of climbing up a mountain trail to visit areas that are probably much like they were hundreds of years ago.

Weezin,

that's pretty much the point for me...i can go to the Whitetail Prairie at Moraine Hills State Park and see what things used to look like 150+ years ago. Marigolds and hollyhocks weren't part of the picture, LOL!

Some people find ox-eye daisies really invasive. I have them in my little prairie, and they are not. Easy to pull up, etc., and they are die-ing out little by little. I pretty much just leave them be. They'll be gone sooner or later. April

I was born and raised in Indiana. The flat plains country seems so strange to me now that I live up against snow capped mountains! A childhood friend who now lives in Wisconsin is planting prairie flowers, too. She sent me some seeds from her fields, along with all the info. I doubt that any of them would grow here, much less thrive and take over... but lovely, none-the-less.