I often see vehement warnings against planting aggressive plants. They are often referred to as invasive even when they are native.
It seems to me that this is a little like warning people against large plants. If you don't want a vine or tree to fill a large area, don't plant an aggressive vine or a large tree. But if you do want the plant to fill a large area, why not?
Of course, I may be underestimating the danger of seedlings. This surely depends on the individual species.
I am specifically thinking of trumpet vine and perennial morning glory. I have a very long stretch of concrete fence that I would like to cover with vines. There is a road on the other side of the fence, so the vines won't creep into a neighbor's yard. I could plant dozens of mannerly climbers and nurture them for years until they cover the fence. Or I could plant a few trumpet vines and morning glories.
I admit that I have not grown either plant before. My old neighbor in Lubbock, TX had trumpet vines, and they didn't seem problematic. Likewise, my Japanese honeysuckle, a notoriously aggressive plant, is just trying to fill a fairly large home I have given it, and if in a couple of years it manages it, I'll be pleased.
I am a little more wary of Ipomoea indica, because I have seen how bindweed pops up everywhere in my yard, and perhaps it's relative will do the same thing.
But I might rather have an additional seedy weed and a beautiful vine covering my fence than neither. Will mowing not keep seedlings from becoming too much of a nuisance?
What do you think? Am I underestimating the danger of aggressive plants, or are they just plants that are good for larger areas?
