Texasflip, Urochloa texana is the only Urochloa species reported in Kansas to date, and that is listed only for Hamilton county (see BONAP map at link below). It seems to me that the leaves on your plant are too long for the Signal Grass species. Here is a link that might be useful:

Although I do not live in Texas (hope you don't mind my opinion) I have to say LOS is an amazing rose. I got an own root from DA in Texas and it got probably 3 feet x 3 feet in just one season, almost always in bloom. Scent is light, but I would grow this rose even if it had no scent. If I'm in zone 6 and it grew relatively large in one season, I can only imagine how it would be in Texas. Good luck with your decision, from what I've read, LEH has a much stronger scent and stays more compact. Another thing to mention, I don't know if this varies with climate or other factors, but it's a very bushy rose, as opposed to many of the adjacent roses that just want to grow straight up. Take care! Drew This post was edited by zone6-nj on Sun, Jan 26, 14 at 23:02

This highly unscientific. It is typical in ecology which many times is more ideology than science. In the first part, we reed this: "Our results show that Eastern redcedar is increasing in density in Kansas prairies from research that we have studied. Invasion of redcedar has been estimated to be 56.9 trees per hectare per year (reference??). When redcedar become more abundant than grass and begin to take over, they decrease the amount of plant species growing under them and lower biodiversity according to our sources and data. There are more plant species found in native prairie than in redcedar forest. In order to control this problem, proper management techniques need to be taken to prevent further invasion. Our literature review shows that with proper control, Eastern redcedar can be kept under control and not pose a problem." What is a problem or not, is a personal point of view. If I like redcedar more than grass, it is not a problem, it is very good. Scientists can never tell us whether something should be perceived as a problem or not. They can only tell us, in an unbiased way, what happens and whether the change is significant or not. It is ideology that tells us what we should think and do about something. Not science. This again is something a society has to decide. For instance: do the people like it or not? Do they want to spend money on it, if they don't like it? Is there money for it? Does eradication help, is it feasable? Is eradication of plants something we think is "good" as a society? Etc? No scientist can tell us that. What are the longterm costs of constant eradication? What if we stop for ten years (because of economy for instance): will all efforts be in vain?? What are the long term effects of this invasion on biodiversity? I can understand some PLANTS of course wil not survive in a forest, but what plants will return and on what time scale? How will the biodiversity look like int 10-50 and 100 years? In virtually all cases I know, forests (native and nonantive) carry much more biodiverisity than any grassland. Is biodiversity a good marker for what is good or bad? For what is desirable and what is not in the landscape? Why? Why is it not esthectics, or why shouldn't we look at funghi tat grow under these trees, or animal life or a combination of those? It is like climatologists writing papers on seaice decline and than telling us what we should do. That we should boycot the US as the highest emitter of CO2 per capita. Or that we should sanction China for it. In their free time on ther personal accoutn, they ar efree to do so. But again: not in scientifici papers. BTW: You'll never read that in climatology, as climatologists can only say what is significant and what is not and that is the only thing they do say. climate change is a science fact: what wil happen to the prairie if temperatures rise in the next 20-70 years? Do we know that? Another point I found is that prairies and especially infertile parts are abandoned. I am not 100% sure, bu that is what I read. If so: you need to manage more and mor ehabitat in order to keep the prairie the way it is. Still, globalwarming could change everything as many species are living within climatological boundaries. But this is a good example of what ecology is: not scientific (read the par that rodents are considered bad, how is that scientific??) but ideological. They don't observe things only and give us therir impartial data, nope, they also tell us what we should think about it or feel that if others thinks likewise (farmers) etc this add to their findings somehow. In short: this is in the line of ecology nowadays. Pick up 5 books on invasion ecology and you'll find little evidence (or even clear evidence to the contrary, like I did) but a whole lot of value laden wording. Now these words together to many people sound plausble, but in my mind they indoctrinate the students who read this on their university. And so they'll continue to do research this way with little evidence, little data on statistical significance but a lot of assumptions.

Chad, As I said on my reply to Mike's "Yesterday's Herps (Missouri)" post, I didn't start looking until mid-May but I'm doing well in spite of the hot temps. Of course, I've timed most of my trips around the start/end of storms and rainy weather, but I would still say that it's been a good late spring/early summer so far here in middle Tennessee and western Kentucky. I definitely think Arlene got lots of animals, not just herps, moving last week. My neighbor had to cut his fishing trip in the Gulf short because of it, but he said everything was really moving the day before it hit. They were very successful in the short time they were there. Evan