Yeah I can speak from experience that they are very invasive. In fact I can share a picture. A few years ago I was renovating a long border. My former stepmother had planted these on one end of the old border and in just a few years they were carpeting around 60 square feet. Luckily the roots are shallow so they are not impossible to dig up. But there were SO MANY of them that it was a day long project. I took this photo of a small portion of the white strappy roots. And if you leave even a tiny bit new ones will sprout. They have distinct leaves and are easy to yank out but they keep coming and coming and coming. I do love the little papery orange bracts but if I were ever to plant this again it would be in a large container on a concrete slab.

morpheouspa. Gloves down here for a moment. What claims are you referring to that I have made about mechanical aeration? Granted, I do claim that there are purposes for which the employment of mechanical aeration can be useful and it irritates me to no end that people peremptorily discount mechanical aeration as being without any use. (in the past couple of months, I've seen were you have suggested? that plug aeration might be an aid in pursuing some outcome.) Are you saying that I have advocated mechanical aeration as a necessary continued lawn care practice? (Do you advocate the application of a surfactant as a necessary continuing lawn care practice?) Is it necessary to spam this site with links to hundreds of university turf programs that recommend home owner lawn aeration not only as a continuing lawn care practice, but for the prevention of disease, thatch LDS etc.? For what purpose? They are just conclusory statements, No more valid than anything you or anyone else can produce. What you linked to, rather than belittle you, look at the facts: First some of what they call aeration is plowing (bad for me) but anyway I counted 13 studies and of those, the majority showed some improvement to crop yield, none showed a decline. They do,make a conclusory statement that aeration will cause increased weeds. OK fine. Based on what? No ancillary evidence even? Did they atleast credit dchall for the quote or maybe daniel? So even though your site actually supports that aeration results in slightly greater % crop production than non aeration, I say irrelevant and useless for any support for either of us. This argument has been going on forever, but if you take the time to understand and observe, there are logical conclusions you can come to and when applied either work or don't. If X then Y, put it to the test, and if it repeats, then continue, whether it is surfacants, aeration, corn meal or Bayer. So recommend on your experience and give your rational when challenged. Caveat emptor. My goal for my lawn, and for those I give advice to, is to obtain a turf that in the shortest time possible will only require mowing, watering and fertilization. I endeavor to employ the least expensive, least labor intensive, but most effective methods for a healthy turf AND soil and those are the ones I promote. My questions were for the reader and therefor need no response from you . I will no longer joust this windmill with you or anyone else, but I will call out anyone who "make [an unsupportable} claim... or [spew} any other blatant lie"

Long ago I learned on the Rose Forums, "If it doesn't make your heart sing -- pitch it". This idea has served me well.

It does have the typical appearance of a Buprestid beetle exit hole. See also this Colorado State University fact sheet that describes the exit holes and feeding damage of some of the common borers of ash trees. "Adults of the flatheaded appletree borer similarly emerge from trees primarily during May and June, cutting their way through the bark and producing a D-shaped exit hole. However, flatheaded appletree borer is a larger insect than emerald ash borer with a somewhat broader body form. The D-shaped exit hole it produces is slightly larger and wider than what an emerald ash borer will produce."