I have a beautiful ceanothus hedge in my yard. Right now it's in full beautiful lilac blue bloom. It shapes into a hedge very nicely. Dendromecon is a rangy bush and doesn't form a hedge. I have a flannel bush as well and it's pruned into a nice box hedge. But it grows very quickly and has to be pruned back every summer. It's also in full bloom and is covered in waxy yellow flowers. Maybe even Toyon can be hard pruned to a hedge. Or even a california laurel. I never tried though I have both plants. Both have to be pruned because they are very fast growers in Southern Cal. Manzanita makes a good bush, but I've never made it into a hedge. You really want to see those striking red trunks and limbs. Maybe even try California bush poppy: Carpinteria. It has lovely white poppy-like blooms each spring. It is a very compact grower. At least for me.

hpersky: I think these are very different people with a lot of thing sin common. They see a problem, they adress this to a newcomer and the endresult is to get rid of all newcomers. The thing in Arizona reminded me very much of this argument. Over here I saw this documentary in which several people stated that these MExicans were dangerous and carried guns.....yes, may be....and how is that unique to Mexicans??? In The Netherlands, we have the same thing constantly now. Muslims are the problem of: hate against gays, are badly inegrated, are prolific, are agressive, are a threat to us, are the main cause of violence and theft etcetcetc. And it is all based on examples (tons of them) and it is believed by nowadays 20% of the voters. The facts are very different. But examples, pictures, are strong. Just like that kakapo...Which is not the victim of competition (like in plants, which we are discussing here) but by a predator and the kakapo does not live on a continent, but on an Island. I do not think a kakapo is worth more or less than a stout BTW. If we believe in Dawinism, than the kakapo is a victim of its lack to defend itself. No one is to blame. I LOVE all animals. In fact, I have helped young birds from predatory birds. Just because I consider myself a full part of nature and it is my instinct to protect the young, defensless bird. So too the kakapo: I think it is a very placid, lovely bird. It would be very difficult for me not to protect it when I saw it under attack. I wonder if people would think the same if a dangerous mosquito was under attack from a newcomer btw.... But is the kakapo really the victim of the stout. Did New Zealand nature flourish before invasive species came on the Island. This has been researched on almost all pcific islands: the population of almost all birds was dwindeling well before predatory mammals were introduced. It was...us! It were Polynesians for instance. Was the Moa killed by European mammals? No, it was not. And this is not just an example, this is the redline: the only invasive species which has had a constant impact on its own all over the world is us. Focussing on invasive species without taking this factor into account, is the same as what we do with immigrants blaming them for things caused by ourselves. Which we constantly do. The part of Europe and the uniqueness that is lost. Not a single part of Europe has an "ecosystem" that was not (heavily) modified by humans. So what caused this loss in "uniqueness"?? Invasive species? One thing is certain: never on their own. Besides: if you say that plants lose some traits, you have to be fair. The newcomers gain new traits. Fro instance: Sitkaspruce in Europe is now different from its American borthers and sisters. We now have European landraces and these are indeed protected. So yuo gain seomthing "unique". Another thing is that we also gain unique compositions never witnessed by modern man. For instance: in NW Europe you have woods constisting of more different trees than ever before. Like Tsuga-Abies-Picea-Pseudotsuga-Quercus-Fagus forests. If "unique" means something "good" than we win something and we lose something. But the words used by this sceintist are hardly scientific. They are trying to appealing to our emotions. "sSomething unique is lost!! Forever!"...They appeal to the fact that we do not want to use something of "value". Which is not scientific, as value is something personal. It is also single sided: it does not mention that we get something else back. It is like saying that we lose our culture, because our Dutch music gets lost, our language is heavlily influenced by English and changing rapidly our architecture is influenced by foreign artists etcetc. First of all, like in nature: this is nothing new! The Dutch language for instance is littered with germanisms. I repeat myself. If you only focus on what was, then you only lose something. If you look at everything, you must say that things change and you got something back. So the Dutch language and culture is in constant flux and like nature, more than ever! Ecologists are prone to attribute value to some things and not to others. So they mention losing something that is of value to them and they do not mention gaining something that is if no value or even undesirable. What is or what isn't desirable is a personal thing. Not something science can dictate or even prove. Almost all things we have lost when it comes to biodiversity, is lost because of habitatloss and hunting by us. It is rarely if ever lost by introductions of specieson continents and certainly not by competition. The introduction of species has lead to huge local increases in biodiversity and globally, because of a few losses mainly on Island by disease and predators, is going down. New species can provide valuable habitat for other speies, oldcomers or newcomers. And sometimes, we discover new species in introduced forests. Like in The Netherlands, wehre a totally new fungus (mushroom) was found in a forest of Pseudotsuga Menziesii...

Correction--our property is on the east side of the road. Sounds like my idea of using plants and trees might not work out. We are in a rural setting all wooded with houses on 5 acre tracts. We are leaving about 80 feet of space natural between our house and the road. Would this be enough space to layer plants and trees? Besides the firs there now is mostly salal, huckleberry and lots of moss and old downed trees. None of these plants are dense. I think we are in zone 5. We live north of Lacey about 3 miles from the sound. There is not steady traffic along the road just the occational sound of a car going 50 to 60mph. Thank you for your input!

Here in OKC there is a large grass planting I like to drive by just to look at it. It has large swath of Little Bluestem massed in and behind that is taller Switchgrass which is also massed in. The Switchgrass looks like the species rather than a named type. In front of the bluestem they planted lower growing blue grama. The effect is quite nice as the massed plants get taller from front to back and it shows up the variation of height and color due to the mass planting and each type being separated rather than mixed together. They placed some large rocks in front with some Hepseraloe planted here and there which makes a nice contrast that echoes the grass in shape but with thick leaves and pink flowers on tall stems, its the only color and the simplicity is very effective. Behind the grasses are cedars which looks especially nice in winter with the light winter color of the grasses contrasted against the green. There are also bronze statues of realistic buffaloes, a mother and two babies which is a nice effect. If I had the space I would try to copy it. A crew cuts it back each spring but other than that its self maintaining. Another native native grass that works well is SideOats Grama which is mid height. It forms seeds early, each mature plant forms a thick tussock that has hundreds of stems with seeds that catch the light in late afternoon. They reach maturity in a couple seasons.