Viewing post #2651128 by sedumzz

Dewberry said: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?

Well, most gardeners prefer a tidy , clean , look. so a rampant plant would be toublesome. That's why warnings are there. Some plants that are invasive in an area, can be another reason.

Most of them are just plants that are more suitable for larger areas or meadow gardens or the more informal gardens.