I don't like the Meserve hollies as the cultivars sold here are prone to dropping leaves - at least in this region. The main value of this group is that it provides the general appearance of any English holly to those living in climates too cold for it. Judging from your plant list you are probably gardening in Sunset 5 rather than USDA 5 - the USDA zones are what most here are putting in after their screen names as the Sunset system is not nearly as well known and widely used - and do not need to bother with Meserve hollies. English holly does so well here it has become a pest, frequently popping up on undeveloped land near towns and cities.

I mow it mostly to get rid of the flowers - my pooch is happy he's finally got a nice cool place to nap in the sun, so getting stung by a bee wouldn't be good. I love the way it spreads, also. Runners above ground, and they do eventually root (similar to how strawberry plants do I think) - but should be easy to contain just by cutting off those runners. Once those runners root, and if they have a chance to establish for long, they'd probably then be hard to get out. But easy to keep it from getting to that point. The runners below haven't started putting roots in the ground yet, but some other shorter ones have - so maybe they only root if the water is good there. I planted about 16" apart. If doing again, I probably would have got another tray and done 12" apart so they fill in quicker. Some weeds/spurge grew in between them that I'm having to slowly pull out. Now that it's filled in pretty well, I think new weeds will have a hard time getting in there. It grows pretty dense, and I would guess will get even denser over time. So it does seem like it'll be a good deterrent to future weeds in the are. Seems like I read somewhere that mowing helps it create more branches. So that could be a reason possibly to mow it early, even if not mowing for the long term. Might help it get more dense from the start to help keep the weeds away better in the long term if it gets established in a more dense way(?).

"If it doesn't really mean that, is there any real reason to stay with strictly "native" plants rather than ones "adapted to the environmental conditions"." There have been some wonderful threads on this question. I've put in a link to one of them here, and there is also some good stuff in the FAQs. I think you'll find a wide variety of personal takes on the native vs. non-native issue. One thing just about everybody agrees on is to avoid planting, spreading or encouraging non-native invasive plants, including those that spread when birds eat the seeds and fly away to plant them in the wild. Two big debates are: (1) what is a native? and (2) what about non-invasive non-natives? The 'what is a native' debate involves issues such as: (1) how far back do you go? do we assume that pre-European conditions are pristine or do we acknowledge that indigenous peoples manipulated the flora by burning, clearing, etc.? Do you say that plants that were native before the ice ages but never made it back up north in the centuries since are still native? (2) is native to the U.S. enough, or to my state?; my county?; (3) if something is native to a wetlands in your state, and you don't have a wetlands on your property (or your property was not a wetlands in the pre-European past), then is that plant native to your property? (same for sunny, wooded, alkaline, acid, etc.); (3) are any or all cultivars and hybrids natives? The 'what about non-invasive non-natives' debate is largely scientific, I think (I may get lots of disagreement here). Those of us who want to see the ecological diversity of pre-Colombian America restored (even a tiny bit) prefer to spend all our time and energy on natives. If the goal is restoring, recreating or honoring native plant communities (not just individual species), then there is no real place for non-natives, or at least no reason to expend time and energy on them. I see each native in my yard as a piece of a complex puzzle that includes the climate, the soil conditions, the wildlife, even the bacteria -- this puzzle gives me just a hint of what the tiny piece of land I am stewarding was like during the time of the pyramids, the Roman empire, the middle ages and early Renaissance, before the European immigrants artificially speeded up the natural processes of species distribution to a dangerous level. Adding a non-native is like trying to fit a piece of a different puzzle into the picture. One puzzle at a time is all I can handle. But if you are making a garden with native plants in it (as opposed to a native plant community), many people are perfectly comfortable with mixing natives and non-natives (as long as they are not invasives). For some people, native plants are a much-overlooked treasure trove of beautiful, interesting plants that serve a myriad of purposes. Anything that increases the cultivation of natives will, in the long run, help maintain and restore the vanishing diversity of our plant communities. I do think the point about 'adapted to local conditions' is a good one. Many native plant enthusiasts will remark that natives require less water, less soil amendment, less fertilizer, pest control, etc., than non-natives. But this is not true for all cases. A plant from Asia that grew in conditions identical to those in your yard may not need water, soil amendment or fertilizer (although pest control may be worse), while a so-called native plant that thrives in very wet conditions in your area will need lots of care if you try to plant it in a spot that's too dry. To me, that means the plant is not really native to the spot where you planted it, but this may seem like nitpicking. Sorry for the long-winded sermon -- this stuff really matters to me, -- wd Here is a link that might be useful: Helpful thread

I grow all of the plants that you mentioned. First of all we should define invasive. None of the plants are invasive as in detrimental to agriculture or natural habitats. You are more concerned with "aggressiveness" in the sense of a landscape or garden. All of the plants you mentioned have extensive root systems. However, if you want to remove them, you can dig the core of the roots out and missed roots will not resprout. Its the extensive root systems of these plants that make them desirable, drought resistant, disease resistant, they won't need soil amending or fertilizers etc... Little blue stem tends to spread and cannot be divided without a saw... its does widen and spread, but slowly ... The rest of the plants do widen as they grow and they will tend to fill in the space that they are given. The grass (LBS) is recommended to fill in between the flowers because without the competition from the grass the flowers tend to get top heavy, wide and fall over. The grass interplanted with the flowers helps keep them from falling over...(my observational opinion) The asters tend to reseed readily and some species are considered aggressive. It depends upon the species and your growing conditions. (This can easily be controlled by dead heading the flowers not letting the seeds hit the ground...) Some of the aslpeias spread readily too, depends upon the species and your soil conditions. Asclepias are quite lovely and make excellent landscape plants. I think they can be controlled fairly easily by snipping the seed pods before they open. If you do plant those plants, get ready for lots of butterflies. All of those plants are butterfly favorites and you will enjoy both the beauty of the flowers and butterflies.