Yes, I can.

With every plant you destroy, you are removing oxygen that you and your children so desperately need, just to make your yard look "nicer".

No, I'm getting rid of things that are taking up space for something that I want to grow. Things which contribute oxygen themselves. Something that is competing for space and water.

And I hope you think the same the next time you smash a bug or spray pesticides on your plants.

Oh no, is this a tongue in cheek discussion or a purposely provocative posting to stir up people who garden? I'm going to take the bait. Gardening, landscaping, growing, cultivating, and building, etc., involve deliberate acts such as planning, selecting, placing, moving, organizing, encouraging, discouraging, starting, maintaining, and, yes, stopping plant life. Gardening is not a passive activity of merely accepting whatever 'nature' or the previous owners planted. So I will get rid of the pine tree that started growing in the middle of my lawn, thanks to an unconcerned squirrel.

If established trees can be maintained in the landscape, wonderful. If they prevent other desired trees/plants from flourishing, or if they pose structural, visual, or agricultural threats they may need to go. But you probably already knew that.

I think Jmac may be on to something. Either the OP has a pretty poor understanding of the issues involved with invasive plants or they are trying to stir people up. If it's the latter, we could do without that kind of post.

I refuse to take the bait myself, but I encourage all of the rest of you to! I'm in need of some entertainment today.

"With every plant you destroy, you are removing oxygen that you and your children so desperately need, just to make your yard look "nicer"."

Is the Earth suffering an oxygen deficiency sufficient to make us desperate for more? I haven't noticed anyone gasping for breath lately.

Richard.

In response to esh ga, "No, I'm getting rid of things that are taking up space for something that I want to grow."

That is the most selfish thing I have every heard someone say. You would destroy something like a 50 year old oak tree (just an example) just so you can plant some stuff?? Removing suckers and weeds is one things, but cutting down a mature tree for a garden just seems so wrong.

Perennialfan273,

It's obvious Esh_ga wasn't talking about a 50 year old oak! Have you forgotten the subject of your own thread? What's your point? Are you just trying to be a troublemaker or do you really not understand?

invasive eucalyptus is choking out out natural habitat here.

this once used to be lush native habitat for trees flowers and animals

{{gwi:427741}}

hating a tree is nonsensical; rather i acknowledge the problem.

Around here, what I remove are:

- chinese privet: both mature and seedlings
- japanese honeysuckle
- tree of heaven seedlings
- paulownia seedlings
- nandina seedlings
- mahonia bealei seedlings
- Elaeagnus seedlings
- mimosa seedlings

Probably some other things, but definitely not any 50 year oaks.

So given that those are the REAL things I remove (not some hypothetical/hysterical example like a 50 year old oak), now what do you say?

LOL! rhizo 1 has the right take on this thread - I won't take the bait either, just nibble a little and stir the coals - ecologically speaking, is an "invasive" really a disaster or just a pioneer species in a new environment doing what Ma Nature programmed it to do?
hortster

I just love TROLLcolor> threads!

Perhaps it isn't so much a case of "trying to change the earth" by eliminating invasives or avoiding non-natives as much as possible, but rather an attempt to avoid stealing sustenance from wildlife. Many non-native invasives do not provide the food our native species eat. I pull LOTS of weeds and plants I don't want. Then, like every other gardener I know, I plant something in their places. The actual change was the introduction of non-native species. I have non-natives in my garden, but I am trying to plant more and more natives and I always plant native trees!

Cynthia

ps. Perennialfan, oaks are not invasive, so why would you think esh was talking about oaks when your own post was citing the need to keep non-native, invasive species? In addition (just in case you don't know), invasives choke out and kill other plants-just what you are railing against. I am confused. I'm thinking the others may be right and you just want to stir things up.

The eucalyptus mentioned by boom1 is a great example of the environmental threat posed by some non-native trees. In addition to routing out other plants (and the animals that depend on them), eucalyptus trees produce a highly flamable litter that has contributed to the spread of California wildfires.

I'm trying to eradicate English Ivy from our yard. The National Park Service has declared war on this tree-choking exotic, which is being spread farther and farther into pristine areas by some of nature's best emissaries, berry-eating birds.

what I remove on my property, same as esh ga, add to it

oriental bittersweet
mile a minute vine
burning bush

And now the japanese hops vine has invaded our local area. I thought the bittersweet was a nasty item, but the hops vine is worse. It covers EVERYTHING growing remotely near it.

And along all the local creeks it's the lesser celadine growing so thickly, nothing else has a chance.

I've never seen anything more depressing than our local creek now, infested, or the edges of wooded areas so cloaked with heavy dangerous bittersweet, and now the hops vines. A jogger was killed in Philly a month ago running under a Tulip tree at the wrong time, when it was loosing a limb due to the weight of the bittersweet vine pulling it down.

If we live without regard to the invasives around us, we are doomed to see nothing else grow, because of them.

rain2fall - my point in the last post was that there can be no possibility of consensus in this thread. I allow no invasives on my property, understand the principles of ecology, environmental biology and dendrology. This inane conversation could continue forever, and just might. If many that have posted understood the incredible problem with invasives, something actually might get done. Too many naysayers that truly do not understand.
hortster

Horster,

I pretty much agree with you. I prefer to plant natives, but I will plant non-natives that will stay put.

Rain2Fall

I'm not trying to "stir up trouble", and I'm not trolling!!! I'm simply stating the long term effects of removing a tree. Also, I may not know what's native and what's invasive in every area, and actually, any tree has the potential to become invasive in some areas, even oaks.

Also, I'm very sorry if some of you are upset about native species being replaced by not natives, but if it happens, there has to be a reason for it, right?? Do you sort of get where I'm going with this?? I just feel like the more we try to alter our environment, the more problems we create.

this thread was either bait by a troll or an emotional response by an uniformed person.

i cant possibly see how Florida could eradicate Eucalyptus. when you chop it it grows back faster, when you burn it, it drops and spreads its seeds. the only control is clear cutting and spraying the trunk with an insanely noxious chemical only available through licensing that contaminates the soil, and even then whats to say natives will flourish there before invasive take it back?

maybe the OP has a point, Man is part of nature thus smog riddled air, brown water and clearcut rain forrests are natural. after all how can you be mad at mother nature who created us?

Mother Earth corrects everything inevitably, we will make our own environment inhospitable and kill ourselves from our own ignorance before we destroy her.

Some people are very dedicated to removing invasive trees from national parks. We have a group that spent a week camping out in the wild, removing tree of heaven, honey locust, pampas and willows from the streams in Wollemi National Park.

I don't hate the trees. I don't hate the people that unknowingly plant them. Instead I hate the greedy corporations that continue to grow ship and sell these in places where they are invasive or have the potential to get planted in areas that are.

"any tree has the potential to become invasive in some areas"

That's not a true statement at all. I think you may, at least to some degree, misunderstand what "invasive" means. Many species do have the potential to be at least somewhat invasive in some area of the world, but it's certainly not universally true.

------------------------------

Invasive plants are actively multiplying biological litter. Imagine trash that, when you throw it out of the window, actually exponentially increases by itself! Invasives destroy the environment by pushing out and destroying native life forms.

OOh, I LOVE that term: 'biological litter'.

And to add to Brandon's statement, by definition native plants cannot be considered invasive. They may naturalize freely but they do not offer the same sort of ecological disruption as do non-native, exotic species, so no, any tree does not have the potential to become invasive. Unless you remove it from its native environment and transport it to a second, distant location (like another continent!).

She may not be a troll, but the OP has demonstrated little understanding of the issue. If she really wants to get into this discussion, some serious reading and research on her part is in order.

Gardengal48 and brandon7, I know what the difference between invasive and native is. I have a very great understanding of these terms. I think maybe I just worded my post wrong. What I meant was it has the potential to be invasive in some areas that it is intentionally planted in. I'm going to end this discussion with this.

A large percentage of plants are not known to be invasive anywhere on the face of the earth. Most plants grow best in their native environment and perform poorly when removed from their native conditions. It's really only certain plants, who's growth is almost unchecked when introduced to some new location, that have invasive potential.

Some sites do lend themselves to invasion from invasive plants more so than others (Hawaii for example), but only certain plants really pose a threat if introduced. Many plants couldn't survive there at all without perpetual human intervention (greenhouse, etc).

Perennialfan273, There is an excellent book out by Doug Tallamy of Univ. of Delaware, explaining it in easy to understand language. Recommended for all people interested in a better understanding.

Here is a link that might be useful: Bringing Nature Home

philinsydney1, I'm inspired by your efforts to help an Australian national park in the fight against invasives. It's too huge of a job for the park service to handle alone. In the U.S., each national park has an invasive plant management plan and volunteer teams are essential.

One example is California's Yosemite, which is at risk of being overrun by non-native invasive plants such as Himalayan blackberry, yellow star-thistle, bull thistle, French broom, Italian thistle, and spotted knapweed, and many more. The destruction these invasive non-native plants cause to native plants, birds, and animals of all sizes is real. In the eastern U.S., the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service warn that many natural areas are being invaded and damaged by non-native trees such as Norway maple, tree of heaven (on your list too), Siberian elm, chinaberrytree, mimosa, Russian olive, Brazilian peppertree, tallow tree, paper mulberry, and others. Iinvasive ferns, forbs, grasses, shrubs, and vines are also destroying natural habitats.

Perhaps a postive consequence of this discussion is that more people will volunteer to help their parks or communities reduce destructive invasive plants.

I know it's not a tree but the kudzu has blanketed whole forest and has killed the trees.
To actually see it is amazing. It looks like a giant green blanket was thrown over the forest.

There is nothing more pleasing to see than a field full of wildflowers in full bloom. Ma Nature is the best gardener-ever!!

Many, when they see my flower gardens make comments about the "weeds" growing in them amoung the added greenhouse plants. There is nothing to compare to a 8' tall Bull Thistle in full bloom, or Queen AnneÂs lace...Have you ever smell the bloom of a milk weed on a warm august night? I call them summer lilacs. There is nothing more stately than a old stand of sassafras trees, or the many verities of Sumac growing in their miniature forests when left undisturbed by "progress". I can go on and on--but in reality these will soon be only memories due to invasive species.

One can only hope; with the help of science; that these desirable looking "invasives" will be genetically altered to not produce viable seed/shoot/runner thus soothing the hackles of the naturalist while feeding the desires of the every day gardener that just likes their unique looks. This will only happen if State Governments prohibits their sale/propagation within their borders.

Seramas, both Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota) are non-native, invasive species in North America, and unlikely to be memories anytime soon.

Perennialfan, too bad I didn't read your plaintive plea for invasive trees before I spent $2000 removing mature Norway maples! ;)

It is true that invasive species are simply doing their natural thing and competing for life like all species - whether in their native or introduced environment. Nevertheless, I have spent many hours and $$ removing invasive plants from my lot as well as some neighboring areas and will continue to do so while physically able. Sometimes I think it's a losing battle and sure do feel something resembling "hate" for a species like Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus).

When I despise a tree, it's often for some attribute other than invasiveness...noxious flowering, sparse canopy, messy fall habit, early mortality, et cetera.

That said, here's one of my favorites:
(Don't worry, not only is it in a container...it's also fenced in my side-yard, so there's very little chance of it escaping and attacking the neighbor children) - This is also the tree that I root-pruned last winter. It pulled through wonderfully!
{{gwi:4479}}

Josh

Are you sure that fence is tall enough? Someone said they could climb right over small fences.

Maybe I should add a triple-strand of concertina wire along the top....and a "Do Not Feed The Ailanthus" sign ;)

Josh

I think someone could just fit something through the fence and cut it. Think you should go with a tall concrete fence.

I had a Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) in a 20" pot for 12 years. Each year it was trimmed back to the soil and then stored in the barn. Each year it produced more and more sprouts. It was a sucker from a male tree originally. They are attractive, but very invasive and destructive for the farmers and others. Finally destroyed it because the last year I had it the pot was placed on the ground without a saucer under it and it developed roots (runners) 15' from the pot and took three years to eradicate all the suckers they produced.

My advise is to remember to always use a saucer under the pot--believe you me it will save you a lot of work!

I have several Ailanthus already in the yard....
The plant pictured above, in fact, was started from a sprout found in the yard.

Josh

greenman

Every time you see the word invasive you LOVE to tell people that you grow Ailanthus don't you? I'm just curious...do you really not have a life or do you just like confrontation that much?

If it bothers you so much, just ignore it.
Your insults are out of line. Read up on Garden Web's posting etiquette.

Josh