What was the concern? Weediness? Nurseries and other information sources continue to promote plants that are listed by weed boards in the same regions or states. Lack of hardiness? I've seen nandinas freeze to the ground here in USDA 8, during a record winter. It getting into single digits F. seemed to be the deal breaker. So I have to wonder about the subzero winters of Zone 6. Maybe it being an east Asian plant the hot and wet summers of the eastern US harden it off better than here. Wouldn't be the only instance of this.

What perhaps several people said here vs. what this publication said depends on who knows what they are talking about. If hardiness is the point of contention, both could be right, in a way: it depends on what someone considers hardy. If they think a shrub that grows for years and then kills out in a hard winter is hardy, for all practical purposes, because it did live through the winter for a long time then to them at least it is hardy. If, on the other hand it sometimes killing out means it isn't hardy, then it isn't. To me the second version is the only one that is useful. A plant that may freeze out occasionally may do it a month after you planted it, if a hard winter comes at that time.

What was the concern? Weediness? Nurseries and other information sources continue to promote plants that are listed by weed boards in the same regions or states.

That is so true. It's a gardening magazine, they don't always show any concern for mildly invasive plants. I expect they won't do an article on Kudzu, but this article is not surprising.

Here is a link that might be useful: Invasive.org

Nandina may not be listed as invasive - yet - in VA, and the garden magazine may not consider its "possible" invasiveness as a reason not to feature it. The fact remains that for areas around VA (granted, mostly to the south, as yet), Nandina IS invasive, and it may yet reach that status in VA as global warming continues. Warning people of that possibility, and hoping to prevent it from becoming a problem is, in my book, being proactive rather than reactive. I know that when I mention that a plant is invasive, I do try to say where - some plants are only listed as invasive in some climates, some are listed as invasive pretty much everywhere. And some WILL be listed as invasive in more places as more is learned.

I am sorry that you see this as interfering and being officious. I will admit that some people can become strident on invasive plants, but they are also usually the ones who have been out there trying to remedy the situation in their area, and therefor have strong feelings about the matter.

Information about invasiveness has come a long way since 2006. Still, I'd contact the author/publisher and ask if either has looked into the invasive tendencies of Nandina, if I lived in VA and subscribed to this magazine. Since I don't, I won't.

Any aspiring writers out there in need of subject matter, this looks like a golden opportunity to write a follow up for state-by-state.

I cannot imagine that hardiness was the issue. A full size Nandina made it thorough the -24 degrees F (-31 degrees C) winter at my grandparents's house back in 1985 with very little damage. If it could make it through that, I'd say it should be considered hardy.

I also haven't noticed them being invasive at all. I have never seen a seedling at my grandparent's house, and the Nandina there has been there (up until about 2 weeks ago when I moved it to my house) since I was a small child. My dad & mom have Nandinas scattered through their landscape. While I have seen one type sucker more than desirable, I have never seen a seedling. I don't know of many plants less invasive than Nandina here in Knoxville.

Hardiness can also vary within same species due to genetics. Saw quite a few take it in the shorts here in 1990, where as I said it was a killer because it got down into the single digits or somewhat lower in much of the more populated area near Puget Sound (the mountains have a much colder climate, the areas between intermediate).

By "expressed concern about the appropriateness of Heavenly Bamboo for Virginia," I am pretty certain invasiveness - i.e. producing lots of offspring that are appearing in wild areas - is the question. This is unrelated to suckering.

Invasives may not ever appear in the garden in which they're growing, the volunteers may turn up miles away, in uncultivated areas; the seeds are generally carried by birds. The problem with them is that they take the place of natives that support locally-adapted wildlife.

Invasive.org is a really good resource for learning about the problem - thank you for the link, esh.

Invasive plants can be murder and it's a tricky thing because it's very hard to anticipate a plant going bananas in a region. Closing the doors on all new plant imports would prevent the benefits being realized of having access to the vase majority of cultivated plants that do not go crazy. I have visited Hawaii many times and looked at and read about the vegetation there, so I have a full awareness of the potential of Pandora's Box. Nowadays some places even here where I live (not a hot and wet climate favoring explosive growth) have infestations of ivy, holly etc. that evoke the badly disrupted Hawaiian ecosystems with their large areas of mostly introduced plants run amok. Here as there many people no doubt do not realize they are looking at "artificial" plant communities on undeveloped land in urban and suburban areas.

Invasiveness is the issue that was discussed on this forum a week or so ago. No need to apologize, Dibbit. I didn't take offence as I am also an environmentalist by sympathy. If we become too negative in our responses to the public; however, all that negativity will come back in the form of a backlash. The challenge is to raise public awareness, to educate and draw others into the cause without alienating them. I'm sure it requires much patience and repetition, especially on a forum such as this whose audience changes daily. Patience and repetition are hallmarks of a good teacher. Thank you for your patience and good will.

Well, it turns out Nandina is somewhat invasive in Tennessee according to TN-EPPC. It's listed as a level 2 invasive. I was surprised because I have never seen a seedling pop up where it wasn't planted. I frequently hike in a number of types of natural area and have never seen one growing wild in open areas or wooded areas. I also notice that it's one of the few plants listed on TN-EPPC's site without a distribution map. Most of the plants listed on TN-EPPC's list are literally all over the place. It may be that Nandinas are invasive in other parts of the state, or maybe they are just starting to show invasive potential here.

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

Diggingthedirt,

I want to address two things you wrote above. First, if a plant is invasive at a certain location, it would be very unusual not to see reproduction at that site over many years. I understand that it may be very hard to judge the invasive potential by only looking at a limited area or by only looking in a certain type of growing environment (i.e. a regularly mowed yard), but on a large farm with multiple types of growing environments (a yard, a hay field, unmowed/uncleared areas, flower beds, etc.) over a period of many years, it would be hard to imagine an invasive plant (invasive at that location) would not show considerable reproduction.

Secondly, while reproduction from seed is the primary vector for many or most invasive plants to spread, it is certainly not the only factor. A plant's overall rate of increase in the environment has to be taken into consideration. Vegetative reproduction (i.e. suckering) is a factor in evaluating invasive plants. In my post above however, I was obviously not claiming suckering as a reason for thinking that Nandinas were invasive. The suckering I witnessed, while annoying in a flowerbed, did not rise to the level of invasive reproduction.

I do think invasiveness by suckering is not an environmental problem in "built out" areas, where there are no wild places directly abutting the property; but, I take your point, maybe an aggressive suckerer could be considered "personally" or "horticulturally" invasive. My point was that this kind of plant isn't environmentally invasive because it doesn't threaten wild areas, unless it's planted in or next to one.

And, I agree, that in a rural or farm setting you'd see invasive self-seeding, but in a normal suburban lot many people would never notice. Lots of home owners have mostly lawn, where the seedlings are mowed down on a regular basis, and the beds are either treated with pre-emergents, heavily mulched, or cultivated; and/or any stray seedlings are pulled without ever knowing what they are. My yard's not like that, mostly because I like a little chaos in my garden, but the other yards in my neighborhood are like that.

Some environmentally invasive plants would not be considered invasive at all if it weren't for their ability to quickly reproduce vegetatively. Kudzu is a well known example. Kudzu produces few seeds and the germination rate is low compared to many plants. A hole mountainside of kudzu could be the result of a single seed.

WA has Centaurea macrocephala on the poop list because of a single large infestation in one county. Possibly the TN listing for heavenly bamboo is similar, it is not all over the place now but they are trying to keep that from happening.