I believe when I've looked at their pages on the butterfly bush in the past it was Buddleja davidii only.

B. davidii's listing in Oregon has nothing to do with agricultural settings, it is all related to its escape and spread into natural areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_butteflybush.shtml

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:1084453}}

http://butterflywebsite.com/articles/bgq/buddleia.htm

The author of the above article,Claire Hagen Dole, says that butterflies do use the Buddleia as a food source for their young.

I just got back from a trip through Oregon and was surprised by the number of private and public gardens that had Buddleia davidii in them. I thought with Oregon's draconian weed law enforcement, there wouldn't be a plants left in the whole state. Boy, was I surprised.

I like planting bushes and trees, not so much annuals and perennials, for butterflies, moths, bees, flies, and hummingbirds. There just isn't any native bushes or trees that bloom in late summer and early fall that provide nectar and food like B.davidii. There are a few other exotics but they don't have the color range and pleasant smell that davidii has.

In late fall and winter I have Grevillea victoriae and winter flowering exotic Mahonias that feed Anna's hummingbird and winter nector feeding insects.

Thank goodness there are still progressive nurseries in the PNW and else where, that haven't been scared off by the chemical companies' plant police, that still sell these plants.

Apparently the photos and descriptions of butterfly bush on the above site(s) forming thickets on the banks of rivers here did not make an impression. A fast-growing, sometimes 20' tall shrub can probably do a pretty good job of elbowing native vegetation that native birds and butterflies would be adapted to living off of.

The Anna's Hummingbird is not native to this latitude. It came north after exotic shrubs and trees that flower at unnatural times for this area were present in gardens here for some time. The native Rufous Hummingbird follows the floral calendar up the mountainsides and then flies south for the winter - except for youngsters enticed to remain in lowlands by feeders and flowers in gardens.

I really see no connection between curbing nuisance plants and the profits of pesticide manufacturers.

bboy, so what if the Anna's hummingbird isn't native, neither is the scrub jay or the California Valley quail, but they are here now because of human development, turning the forest into brush land that the scrub jay likes as well as the Anna's hummingbird and valley quail. And it is only going to get worst with the projected human populations for the PNW. The only native plants and animals you will be able to find will be found in parks and natural reserves. You quote from Author Lee Jacobson quit a bit, did you read in his book "Trees of Seattle" that most native plants can't survive in compacted, hot, human disturbed soils, so if we are going to have plants it will have to be exotics that can handle that type of habitat. Anyway, butterfly bushes are shade intolerant and can't compete with our native plants in a healthy environment. Yes, on areas that are being constantly disturbed by man's activities they do get a foot hold and can grow real fast, but once the native trees overshadow them, they die. The Cedar River that empties into lower Lake Washington is a prime example. With dams on it with water levels being constantly raised and lowered, native plants can't get a foot hold, but the butterfly bush grows fast and does colonize this river's bank. But I have noticed that away from the river where native plants can grow, they out grow the butterfly bush and kill it.

As for the connection between curbing nuisance plants and profits of pesticide companies, if you had a pesticide license you would know. Use your favorite search engine and check out the members of the weed boards. You will see that there are employees of chemical companies on these boards along with farmers and foresters. During annual pesticide license training, these employees give Power Point Presentations where they start out telling us what chemical to use to get rid of these evil weeds. Not to far into their presentation they switch to native plants. We find out that the real culprits are native plants, Big Leaf Maple, Western Red Alder, various species of williows, etc. These guys even have the nerve to admit that these native plants are a bigger problem than the exotics. I would say they spend ten percent of their time on exotics, the rest on natives. So when I hear that this weed or that weed cost 34 or so million dollars to get rid of, I take it with a grain of salt. The figure is probably far less than that from what the chemical company employee tell us in the training classes.

Until I hear that plant police are fighting domestic cherries and apples with as much vigor as they do Scotsbroom and Butterfly bushes, if I hear them asking their politicians to roll back policies that bring more people here, then I don't really believe they really have any concern about native plants. It's just a feel good thing for them, along with the brain washing from the chemical companies.

Yes, domestic cherries are as thick in our woods as Scotsbroom is in an abandoned gravel pit, plus they hybridize with one of our native cherries. Domestic apples also hybridize with our native crab apple, Oregon Crab Apple. Apples don't spread like cherries, but I have seen one while hiking in the Olympics. Both these plants threaten our native plants. And increased human population growth will threaten native plants through lost of habitat and more exotics being grown.

I love both native and exotic plants, but I don't want a three hundred foot tall douglas fir or a stinging nettle in my yard, I want a colorful exotic instead.

I love my 100 year old Doug Fir plus with a double crotch. It isn't hurtin no one.

"Anyway, butterfly bushes are shade intolerant and can't compete with our native plants in a healthy environment."

Not only do you fail to understand the threat of non-native invasive plants to our native plant and animal communities, you misunderstand our native plants and their habitat requirements. There are native plants well adapted to disturbed riparian habitats with water regimens as you describe on the Cedar River. However they cannot compete with introduced Buddleia in these sites, no matter how healthy the environment. Buddleia is most certainly causing damage to our native ecosystems and it will get much worse unless the spread is checked. As the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board stated a few years ago Buddleia is "currently experiencing explosive growth that warrants attention. Initially thought to only invade disturbed, degraded wastelands, B. davidii has now formed dense thickets in riparian areas such as along the Dungeness River and along Evey Slough, which provides habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout. It has also been observed expanding in potential salmon spawning habitat in the Nisqually River (Rod Gilbert, pers. comm., 2004)."

http://www.nwifc.org/2009/04/jamestown-sklallam-fighting-butterfly-bush/

There are thousands of "colorful exotics" to plant in a garden that do not pose direct threats to our native ecosystems.

When you get off I-5 southbound at 128th in south Everett there is a wet ditch with a thin line of cattails running along next to the ramp for a time. In the north part there is also a comparatively short butterfly bush that has pushed the cattails aside with its numerous arching branches. Near the south end some dense clumps of purple loosestrife have also popped up to exclude some of the cattails.

Two menaces in the same small space at the same time. It looks as if either goes on to spread through the rest of the ditch it won't be long before the cattails (and other, smaller plants) have been severely reduced or even eliminated.

You guys are fighting a losing battle. As long as human population keeps growing there will be more exotics and less native plants. And there are more people that like butterfly bushes, scotsbroom, and other exotic than you think. Besides, butterfly bushes are not at the same level as kudzu or even English ivy when invading native plant communities. They are not even at the same level as commercial cherries when it comes to invading native plant communities, and they don't hybridize with a native plant like the cherry. Also, butterfly bushes are not completely hardy in the PNW. Yes, I know they are a zone 5 plant, but there are lots of plants that can take lower temperatures than are found in the PNW, but can not survive our winters. Our summers are usually to cool to harden these plant off so they can survive what they could in their native habitat. In the early 1980's, the month of December froze the whole month with a week or more of single digit temperatures, I lost my whole collection of butterfly bushes. They froze out, as well as the few growing along the road shoulders. Even this last winter which was no way near as cold as that winter, my five plants suffered and had die backs from the cold and wet.

I just don't think either the scotsbroom or butterfly bush are a threat. Speaking of salmon, I know for a fact (30 years as a biologist) that they don't care if their stream is fed (streams are acyclic energy systems, flow through, and leaves are one of the sources of that system) and cooled by the leaves of butterfly bushes or willows. What they do care is the lost of habitat from human land use practices.

Like I said you guys are tilting at wind mills. (and hypocrites for not including commercial cherries and apples on the list. But then I guess you guys are afraid the weed boards would show their true colors, commercial and for profit leanings and not for saving the native plant communities, LOL)

The broom is murder on local prairie ecosystems.

You can throw up your hands or you can try to do better with any set of problems. It is certain that no improvement will be made in the garden escape weed problem if nothing is done at hall.

Kind of like trying to save salmon runs with fish hatcheries, regulations and education. Talk about an uphill battle.

I'd like to pursue this topic further... I've been looking at the butterfly forum and they are mostly from the east coast. A couple of plants they really like are buttonbush, Cephalanthus occidentalis, and spicebush, Lindera benzoin. I can't find any entries on this forum for either one, so I would like to know if anyone has grown them here. They are on the Forest Farm plant list so must do OK here, probably as a nectar source since I don't think the butterflies that use them as a host plant live out here. Cephalanthus likes very moist conditions like stream banks, it might do well in my ditches. I don't know if it would be a problem spreading out into native areas? What natives would fit this spot and be a butterfly magnet?

There is also a yellow Buddleia,B. globosa, that sounds a little marginally hardy here but there is a hybrid form that is hardier, Buddleja x weyeriana 'Sungold'-

http://www.goodwincreekgardens.com/

I think they mention it not being invasive. Has anyone grown it?

Nancy

Here is a link that might be useful: Cephalanthus

Nancy,

I grow both the B. x weyeriana and the globosa. I don't see much action from nector feeders on either plant. But they are both beautiful plants. The globosa blooms early summer and the weyeriana is just now starting to bloom. Of all the Buddleia I have growing in my garden, the B. davidii does the best job of attracting nector feeding insects and birds, along with birds that eat insects.

I was looking at a list of native host plants for the PNW, and I'll have to research some of the plants more. Ninebark, Physocarpus capitatus, sounds interesting and also likes wet conditions, but gets to 13' tall so I don't know that it would work in my ditches. Many of the plants don't bloom very long, but maybe with planning there could be a succession of bloom.

Here is a link that might be useful: native host plants

Orange Ball Tree does only bloom early, for a comparatively short time and is tender. I think I have seen it designated as hardy to 15 degrees F. before. Probably it is at best good to 10 degrees F. One I have going on Camano Island froze down last winter. As it blooms off of previous year's wood I only got a few bunches this year. The recovery growth is already at least 3' tall. Neither this or any of the other species grown here compare to B. davidii both in garden value and in pest potential.

I looked at paghat's site and remember now seeing Ninebark "Diablo" in a local nursery. It has dark burgundy foliage, white flowers from May to July, and red fruits afterward, great fall color. It sounds like it gets really tall too, though can be pruned shorter. Does anyone have this to report on appeal to butterflies?

I have Ocean Spray, Holodiscus discolor, in my back woodsy area. I am not back there enough to notice if any butterflies visit. The flower heads on it presently look like many dirty mops hanging there.

Buddleia globosa doesn't sound like really great for attracting butterflies, perhaps the sterile one from the ODA website, Buddleia davidii var. nonhoensis X B. asiatica Asian Moon, would be better.

Diabolo ('Monlo') and others are culivars of the eastern P. opulifolius. Not strictly true but a general pattern is P. opulifolius in the east, P. malvaceous in the Rockies and P. capitatus out here. Not sure I've ever seen cultivars of P. capitatus mentioned.

Buddleia wouldn't work in the area you are talking about, unless you plant it further up the bank. They like their roots in well drained soil during the growing season and would suffer and probably die planted in water logged soil. You said you want lots of color. I am assuming that means flowers. Most native plants in the PNW bloom from late winter to early summer and are finished by mid summer, so you will probably need to plant exotics to get the blooms you want in late summer/early fall. Tall fireweed,Epilobium angustifolium is blooming now. It attracts hummers and nector/pollen feeding insects. I don't think it would grow in water logged soil, but would grow along the bank of your ditch. Many people consider it a weed, but when it volunteers in my exotic garden I leave it with some restrictions. I like the look of the plant, both its foliage and flowers. Plus the fact that bees and hummering birds like it.

BTW, be careful of the plants labeled in the USGS web site you provided. Some of them are on the weed list like the Canadian thistle. The thistle does benifit wildlife, even the Washington State bird, the gold finch, likes its seeds, but I had a county weed board tell me to control the plant on some property I owned or they would and then would charge me for doing so. Also many of the plants on that list are native to certain areas of the PNW, but not to all areas. If you want to be a pure native plant user, then get to know what plants are native to your area and use only them.

For summer spikes from a lowland native shrub to be planted in a damp place the choice that comes readily to mind is Spiraea douglasii. For an extra long season of bloom Potentilla fruticosa is a standout. However, although native to the region it comes from montane ecosystems where it and numerous other plants occur because conditions are different from those in the populated areas at lower altitudes. In a sense such plants are as foreign to Vancouver, Seattle or Portland as those from eastern North America or farther flung locations.

issafish, it is truly disheartening to read your comments and your apparent lack of understanding regarding the threats posed by invasive species and your disregard of the ecological impact. I am just glad that not very many NW gardeners share this distorted and disturbing view.

I'd dispute your notion of the personnel that comprise the noxious weed boards, both on the state and county levels. There are indeed farmers, foresters, nurserymen, various concerned citizens and members of the WSDA, the Department of Ecology and representatives of WSU. I found no evidence to indicate that any of these were pesticide company employees. If you have concrete, written evidence that these folks are employees of chemical pesticide companies, please supply it. There is no 'for profit' motivation behind these boards. They are funded by state and county agencies and operate under very strict budgetary guidelines, budgets that recently have been drastically reduced.

And I'd also question the contention that there are "more people that like butterfly bushes, scotsbroom, and other exotic than you think". Fortunately, when correctly and tactfully educated, most local gardening consumers elect to plant non-invasive species. This has been borne out by my personal experience of many years in retail and wholesale nursey sales and supported by the findings of the cooperative task force of the Washington Invasive Species Council and the WNSLA. In a survey conducted at 5 partcipating retail nurseries, 86% of consumers indicated that they appreciated nursery staff informing them about the alternatives to invasive plants. Sales of five invasive species dropped by 43% and the sales of alternative increased by 23%. Most larger retail nurseries and garden centers in this area are very proactive when it comes to the sale of invasive or potentially invasive species and voluntarily elect NOT to carry or sell them. btw, scotch broom, Cytisus scoparius, is prohibited from sale anywhere in the state. Buddleia davidii is a Class B noxious weed in Washington state, so not yet prohibited from sale, however control is recommended.

Nancy, the following are lists of butterfly attracting plants and nectar/larval host sources for both Oregon and Washington. You'll find a great many common, native plants on the lists as well as many non-problematic exotics. FWIW, while it was not my specific intention to attract butterflies, it's been my experience that many of the same nectar rich plants that appeal to hummingbirds are also of great interest to butterflies.

http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabaws/Butterfly%20Food%20Plants.pdf

http://www.boskydellnatives.com/plantlist_butt.htm

I'm not new to gardening in the PNW, I've lived here 15 years. I have 2 acres that abut other 2 acre lot houses and big cow pastures probably eventually becoming developed. The PO logged out all the Douglas Firs but left a lot of Red Cedar, Bigleaf Maple, and a small amount of woodland plants. I try to encourage salal, Oregon Holly grape, fireweed, Trillium, even stinging nettles, Thimbleberry, Blackcap raspberry, and lots of herbs most people think of as weeds but are actually useful. I planted a LOT of fruit and nut trees, bush fruits, vegetable and perennial beds. I have used what I think is a native mint in my grass infested drainage ditch and it went wild there, blooms a lot, nice for bees. It takes care of itself unlike the very messy grasses. I don't know if putting a shrub there would fit in with mowing and with the concept of what a drainage ditch is for. The buttonbush is tempting but an eastern US native, while Ninebark grows here, but may not have as long a bloom period. I don't know which does better in shade, or along my driveway would be another spot which has overgrown Mugho pine I want to remove. It gets runoff from the entire yard in winter and spring then dries out in summer.

It's funny, some of the nurserymen with the highest regard are those who devoted themselves to travelling around the world collecting those exotic species and bringing them here for all of us to grow. I guess all that is changing in the horticultural world.

Next year I'm planning to add a lot of composite flowers to my beds in hopes of providing more nectar, and covering more ground to crowd out grasses and other weeds. Since a lot of the weeds in my yard are in the aster family I decided I should fight fire with fire. Has anyone grown Emelia? Tithonia? Some Rudbeckias are described as rhizomatous, sounds like they could hold their own, maybe.

The shrubs are hard to find a place for, adding more can mean making more beds out of grass that presently can just be mowed and creating more weed interfaces, unless I can squeeze them in under trees or replace something that died.

issafish, The NRWRC and gardengal's butterfly host plant links aren't expressing what you should grow but what the caterpillars actually eat. I have yet to see any caterpillars on my thistles. I did find some beetle larvae, I'm leaving the plants they are on but cutting off the flower heads until the beetles mature. I saw what I think was a Red Admiral, whose caterpillars eat stinging nettle, which if you look it up is a valuable medicinal herb. My DH cracked me up a couple of times, coming out when I was working in my garden and rubbing the leaves, asking me, "What is this plant?" He's not a gardener. When he asks me what I'm doing that day, I say, "Same thing I do every day, try to take over the garden." One advantage of that is there is only one opinion of what to grow. If it were up to him it would all be grass so it could all be mowed. I'm having to deal with my overly exuberant planting of perennial beds in the past. Many need to become something that doesn't need weeding. Permaculture comes to mind.

I'm also tempted to become an Aronia grower, my bushes have great yields and are easy to harvest, wonderful health benefits, but I need to find processors for the berries. Supposedly Aronia is a nectar source but blooms so early I don't know that any butterflies are around.

Gardengal, you are showing your total lack of understanding of plant ecology and dynamics with your propaganda brain washing from the pesticide industry. Do you sell sweet cherries and apples at your nursery? If you do, then you are a hypocrite. Those plants are as big a threat as Scott broom and butterfly bushes toward our native plant communities. If you can't see that then you truly are blind as to how plants interact. That's the problem with people like you, it is either black or white, good or bad. You don't have a grade in between. Heck, even the corporate controlled weed boards have grades in between, that is why the Wa Weed Board has three levels of control biased on levels of threat. You just don't see it. As I said before, I have a pesticide license that requires yearly training. During that training the chemical company reps and industry people gave talks about controlling weeds. They almost always said their biggest problems were native plants when giving their talks and slide shows about spraying and poisoning weeds. Another example of the ignorance of native plant communities was a statement by another that said, "The broom is murder on local prairie ecosystems". That's only partially true, the real threat is a native, Douglas Fir. The Oak prairie plant community in Western Washington, and probably Western Oregon and BC are not natural plant communities. They were created by the Native Americans who burnt the grass on a regular bases to keep conifers from coming back and shading out the oaks, one of their food sources. The Native Americans have not been allowed to do that for more than a hundred years so Douglas fir has been coming back into the oak prairies shading out the oaks, threatened native flowers, and the Scott Broom. That's the succession of plant communities in the PNW, the climax plant community is a Western Hemlock/Western Red Cedar plant community. They would come after the Douglas fir.

The alternatives list for plants to use as replacements for B. davidii are pathetic. The plants themselves are beautiful but they don't replace the butterfly bush in timing of bloom, different colors available, benefit to wildlife, and a pleasant smell. Do you have a plant that matches or beats the characteristics of the butterfly bush? If you do, then I might consider removing my plants. Until then, they are staying and I am supporting nurseries that continue to sell them.

Wishing for a pony wouldn't make it happen. Neither is wishing for native plant communities like there where before Non-Native Americans started arriving. The human population is growing too fast in the PNW and with climatic change we will be lucky if we have any native plants left in the near future. The plants we will have will have to be able to handle heat, drought, constant human disturbance. Our children will be thankful for butterfly bushes.

In the near future I am retiring. When I do, I plan on lobbying the state weed board to at least put Scott broom and butterfly bush at the lowest level and to add sweet cherries and apples to the list at least at the mid level of control. If Scott broom can't be sold in this state neither should cherries and apples, or only sterile flowering types can be sold. I might not succeed but I will show them for what they are, industry controlled hypocrites who don't really care about native plants. But then they might surprise me and ban sweet cherries and apples. Boy, that would raise a stink, specially from people like you gardengal.

So where are these vast stands of sweet cherries and apples that are choking out native PNW vegetation? I've not seen them and apparently those who investigate and monitor populations of invasive species have missed them also. However, it is not at all difficult to see scotch broom and butterfly bush popping up along roadside verges and in any disturbed natural area. C'mon.....back up these contentions that these "plants are as big a threat as Scott broom and butterfly bushes toward our native plant communities" with some supportive documentation and statistics. Otherwise you are just making wild statements that no one locally involved with invasive species takes seriously.

You know, it's hard to have any meaningful discourse when one party resorts to irrational and unsubstantiated statements to support their argument. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the weed boards are "corporate controlled" (they are not) and you seem to be confusing those who present chemical weed control information at your CEC training sessions with members of the noxious weed boards. Yes, weed board members do sometimes provide training session, as do WSU extension staff and sometimes chemical herbicidal controls are recommended under certain conditions, but they are not pesticide company employees. Their motivation is only to preserve local ecosystems and protect agricultural lands. As I also hold a pesticide license (consultant) and as a CPH, I too attend annual CEC training sessions to maintain certification. While I've attended seminars by various local authorities on invasive species, none of these have been pesticide company employees - most are college level researchers or associated with the WSDA or the Department of Ecology.

And as far as my being swayed or my argument tempered by my "propaganda brain washing from the pesticide industry", all I can say is that is a first :-) LOL!! Any one who knows me or knows my history and my gardening philosophy would simply laugh out loud. I only hold a pesticide consultants license because it is a legal requirement to dispense any kind of information on registered pesticides and in my business I am often called upon to do so, not because I am an advocate of using them. I have gardened totally organically since long before it became 'fashionable' to do so. In fact, I rarely even use organically approved insect and disease controls. And before you start accusing others of having no understanding of "plant ecology and dynamics" and being blind as to how plants interact, maybe you should read Conservation Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications by Fred Van Dyke. Then perhaps -- just perhaps -- we can have a meaningful discussion.

btw, good luck with your retirement plans......that should keep you busy :-)

I'm not seeing any butterflies, not even the maggot laying cabbage moth. Yellow jackets are ruling. I had to take down
Anna's hummingbird feeder because the yellow jackets are fighting vichously over the sugar.

Sweet cherry is quite abundant on some local hillsides, this becomes all the more noticeable at spring flowering time. I have seen no discussion of what impact this seral species might have on the ecosystems where it occurs. Presumably as a stand aged and began to return to a dominance of conifers (where this was permitted) suitable conditions for sweet cherry would pretty much dry up.

Pippins pop up here and there along roads and in other open places often already under heavy agricultural use or other development. Hard to see these as a big threat to the forest. Since these may cross with Pacific Crabapple to produce Dawson Crabapple, as I have heard happens rather often in the Willamette Valley perhaps there is potential for the native species to become partly lost in this mixing of the two. I don't know if the hybrid tends to be fertile or not, it certainly is able to fruit.

The hybrid between the Sweet and Bitter Cherry, the Puget Cherry on the other hand is functionally a mule.

I'm familiar with the anthropological origins of the lower Puget Sound prairies and the growth of Douglas fir into them during modern times. All you have to do is go to the Mima Mounds and read the interpretive signs, view the parkland on the edges of the prairie there where Douglas firs have managed to establish and persist.

To understand the threat broom poses to them all you have to do is go to a local prairie where invading broom has not been controlled or eradicated and see the effects for yourself.

Nevermind the web pages and other information sources describing the situation.

I don't mind the denigration of the Cabbage White butterfly, as it is comparatively boring and bumbling, but they lay eggs that do not turn into maggots. And often they are the only city butterfly around; that is better than no butterflies at all.

Well, it may be kind of like when I planted a mulberry tree in San Diego. The next thing I knew I was seeing exotic birds I didn't even know were around, like orioles and Phainopeplas.

Now if I could find the right butterfly magnet(s) like the mulberry was a bird magnet, that would be great.... It is sad if indeed the butterfly bush is that magnet, but there is Asian Moon Buddleia to consider, plus the groundcover Lo and Behold buddleias.

I'm having a problem in my own yard with cherries coming up from seed or from the roots of the trees, so I can see that viewpoint. OTOH I've seen the very severe Scotch Broom problems up in the Olympic peninsula near Shelton. Then locally I've seen the English Ivy problem in urban forests of Portland, and the Audubon Society trails. Have you ever tried to get rid of that? Makes one ponder those exotic plants that seem so inviting.

Like I said before gardengal, I graduated from college with degrees in biology and ecology, I have worked thirty years in the field, and more important I was born and lived in the PNW for sixty years observing nature my whole life. Bboy hit it right on the nail head when he said, "Presumably as a stand aged and began to return to a dominance of conifers (where this was permitted) suitable conditions for sweet cherry would pretty much dry up." I have observed that with Scott broom, butterfly bushes, and other weeds, the few times the natural serial development of PNW plant communities are allow to progress. One example is a friend of mine who bought thirty acres of logged land ten years ago near Bellingham. Walking through his property with him, I saw butterfly bushes growing almost as thick as in the weed board pictures. But underneath them there were Douglas firs, hemlocks, alders, cottonwood, trilliums, trailing native blackberries and many more native plants. This was a south sloping property and I noticed that these native plants looked better under and near the butterfly bushes than the ones out in the open. Now, ten years later, the trees are starting to over shade the butterfly bushes. My friend hasn't spent one penny trying to remove these plants and in a few years they will be gone thanks to the shade of the conifers. In the mean while, these plants have provide food for wildlife and protection for native plants.

It is obvious gardengal that you are not an observer of nature when you say you haven't seen sweet cherries in the wild. I invite you to take a drive next April from North Bend to Issaquah, or down Highway 18 toward Auburn. Those white flowering trees are not dogwoods, they are feral sweet cherries, and the woods and road sides are thick with them. I never did say apples are thick in the woods. I have found them in the woods miles from the nearest house, probably a discarded core from a logger, hunter, or hiker. Their threat is from hybridization with the native crab apple. Whether the hybrids are fertile or not, it still means that much less opportunity for propagation for our native cherries and apples. That is a threat to their survival.

As for the state weed board, it doesn't have the staff or money to go out and find new threatening plants. They depend on individuals and groups to do that for them. Check the State's web site out and there is a list of plants and who is presenting the plant to the board on their list of potential weeds. That's how the butterfly bush got on the list. That's when the board either sends their employees out to research if the plant is a problem or not, or ask industry if the plant is a problem. When I retire I will present the sweet cherry and apple.

The only WSU sponsored pesticide license training I have time to go to is in Olympia. That one is heavy into forestry and tree farming. You are right, the WSU professors and extension agents don't go into the strict use of pesticides, mostly about Integrated Pest Management. But the forestry and tree farming industry along with chemical company reps do talk, and they have always said their biggest problems are natives like big leaf maple, red alder, etc. Because of your lack of interest in using pesticides you either slept through those talks or they weren't offered where you took your training.

As for WSDA and Department of Ecology, I have worked with these people, and many of them are as naïve and believing in fairy tales as you when it comes to weeds. Like many of the local, state, and federal agencies and conservation groups working to destroy weeds, they spew out information that is not backed with facts or observation. The latest one I saw was a group advertising for employees to kill knotweed on some local Western Washington rivers. They had the nerve to say that knotweed has no value for wildlife, without providing facts. The fact is, is that beavers and muskrats are one of the biggest vectors of moving that plant around. How do you think knotweed got there in the first place and how did it get to the head waters of the streams, since most species of knotweed found in the PNW are sterile males. Streams flow toward the mouth, so unless something like a beaver moves them upstream, they would only be found at the mouth of the stream to where they first became established. Also local industry benefits from this plant. I bought some honey at a local farmers market that a bee keeper labeled as being produced from Himalayan blackberries and knotweed. I can see why, since in September and early October, knotweed is the only major plant blooming. It was good honey! And you want to deprive this man of a income!

Don't get me wrong. I am for the control of plants in certain situations, both native and exotic. If we want to maintain the artificial man created oak prairies found west of the Cascades in the PNW then we will have control both the native, Douglas fir, and the exotic, Scott broom. Like you, I don't like to use pesticides, specially when there are endangered plants involved. For the most part we can't burn like the Native Americans did, but we can use heavy farm equipment to cut or pull down unwanted species on these prairies. But I do enjoy the bright cheery, yellow blooms of Scott broom in our dark gloomy spring and would miss it if the weed police manage to eradicate it. Also, every place I have lived, I have had butterfly bushes. After I retire, I have one more place I am buying and will move to before I take the dirt nap. And I will have butterfly bushes there. Thank goodness there are still nurseries who sell it since it isn't as easy to propagate as the naïve weed boards will have us believe. They tell us that just throwing it on the ground and it will root and take off. Unbelievable the lies and ignorance these people will tell. I find a success rate of about one third. And if I dont get those potted plants into a protected area before a hard freeze, those plants die. If you can do better, then propagate the variety 'Royal Red' of B. davidii, since that variety does the best for attracting humming birds, for me.

issafish, i think everyone would appreciate it if you cut the personal attacks out of your posts.

Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it

Yowza!! Now we're encouraging the promotion/cultivation of knotweeds and Himalayan blackberries!! I give up.......I do believe issafish is a lost cause, but I am hopeful that his views are not those held by the majority.

btw, you have confirmed the ID of those 'feral sweet cherries'? More likely they are our native cherry, Prunus emarginata, which is very common in natural areas in western Washington and into the Cascade foothills.

No, really, there are lots of Sweet Cherry in the hills around local communities as well as within them. Often they are among Red Alder trees and have managed to grow taller than the alders around them. Some sites have Sweet Cherry, Bitter Cherry and Puget Cherry all growing near one another.

This summer a group of us went out to a local winery perched on a wooded hillside where it was thought a naturalized sweet cherry was very tall (it was a tall tree but not exceptional for this species here). Smaller examples were scattered over the site near the "tall" one, as is often the case. I suggested most of these be removed where they were interfering with the garden plantings there.

Thanks for the suggestions for Spiraea douglasii and Potentilla fruticosa, bboy. The Spiraea looks somewhat like Buddleia in the long spires of bloom, and has a long bloom season, it certainly is worth looking into. I looked at Portland Nursery today and didn't see one but was entranced by the blooming Clethra alnifolia, covered with bees. I have a Potentilla that has been overgrown by a Mugho Pine, I may transplant it in the fall or else cut out the pine.

Interesting thread. we had a blowup on san Juan Island a few years back over controlling noxious weeds. Tansy Ragwort in particular, which is poison to sheep. The weed board demanded the right to go on to anybody's property with Roundup, and simply start spraying.

The many many many of us who care about organic gardening AND property rights suggested a viable alternative stated much more passionately than the weed board's idea of paying all the jobless high school students in summer recess to do the same job, but with a hand-held weed puller.

Even though our alternative made great sense to control weeds AND increase local employment, the shrill level over property rights destroyed any possibility of moving forward with the original issue of controlling ragwort. Finally, the very idea of giving the weed board any license to go onto private property was canned.

These days, the big invasive plant issue is Scotch Broom, for which the board has imported some exotic European broom insect. I can't recall if they did it without asking we the public what we thought. Nonetheless, many of us do see the uncomfortable linkage to something similar that occurred in Australia, importing cane toads for some similar exotic clean up.

But there's also good news. Some other govt. operation reintroduced the native bluebird which had become extinct here. It provided a gorgeous counterpoint to all the controversy surrounding plant introductions.

Too bad salmon and ling cod don't eat scotch broom and tansy ragwort, because we all wish they'd dream up a viable plan for reintroducing all the extinct marine populations.

Wow, this has been an incredibly rewarding thread. I never expected to get this much info, to get this many suggestions, or to listen in on such interesting exchanges!

Thanks to everybody that has participated.

klew

PS I work with agriculture producers throughout the US, and I can vouch for the invasive & often damaging effects of "feral" garden plants on agricultural, silvicultural and natural landscapes.

With all due respect gardengal, you are stating facts not in evidence when you say I am "...encouraging the promotion/cultivation of knotweeds and Himalayan blackberries!!" I just don't think they are as big a threat or expense to us or the native plants as you would like to think. I also know for a fact that our native wildlife do enjoy eating both of those plants. I have watched both beaver and muskrats eating knotweed. I have seen deer eating the spring growth of Himalayan blackberries, and I have seen black bear and coyotes eating the berries, let alone the birds. People also derive an income from these plants. The honey I told you about earlier. Also, as a child I use to make money in the summer from peeling cascara bark, Rhamnus purshiana, and picking Himalayan/evergreen blackberries during the summer. More money than if I mowed lawns or delivered newspapers. In counties like Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Mason, there are people today who are supplementing their income during these hard economic times by doing just that. It would be real bad, in my way of thinking, if some self righteous weed police comes along and sprayed those berries denying these folks an income. Besides the state already promotes the cultivation of domestic varieties of Himalayan blackberries. I just bought a flat and some blackberry jelly at the Olympia Farmers market. There were several different farmers selling them there. Of course you will ignore what I just said, and insult my education and life experience like you have in past post. BTW, with my education and life experience, I do know the difference between Prunus emarginata and Prunus avium (sweet cherry) and those I see in east King county are sweet cherry.

I need to stop this post since I am heading out the door to Fonderosa. Maybe you'll see me up in Goldbar. I'll be the big ogre stomping around the booths with an arm load of potential weeds you usually find at these exotic plant sales.

There's a big solid patch of knotweed under the alders way up the river east of Granite Falls, in a totally wild area. This simply has to have supplanted or prevented the growth of native understorey there.

Himalayan blackberry would appear to be so called here after the 'Himalayan Giant' cultivar selected by Luther Burbank. He grew it from seeds obtained from the Himalayan region, but its abundant weedy progeny have been determined to actually belong to Rubus armeniacus. It is very good at inserting itself among other plants both in cultivated areas and in wild places, and then forming a solid domelike growth that spreads both by layering of branch tips and additional seeding out. The extensive patches invading fields and unused lots where there might not have been much native vegetation left beforehand are not the limit of its presence by any means. It even survives flooding along rivers.

The fact that there is some use of some exotic species that have gone wild here by some native wildlife does not demonstrate that it is acceptable to have entire natural communities disrupted by alien plants. It may not be an equal trade at all when a knotweed takes over an entire river bench or a blackberry thicket grows to cover half or more of a lot or field. A study undertaken at the Seattle arboretum found that although native birds spent some time in exotic species of trees from the same genera as those native to the site the majority of use was made of the native species only.

Now I'm seeing Epilobium hirsutum on Camano. I first encountered one plant at one of the ponds on another part of the property awhile back, this year there are several here below the house. One has grown up through a sweetgum to flower just above the tree's top. Guess I should start digging them out.

Be sure to click on the aerial photo at the link below and look at the size and density of the infestation.

The moth in the above image is on a potentilla shrub, one of the buddleia substitutes mentioned in this thread. Besides the diurnal moth, I sometimes see Painted Ladies, Skippers, and Cabbage Whites on the blossoms--but mostly bumblebees use the flowers. This is all in the parking strip; very low maintenance.

larry gene, I see skippers on my large patch of mint, which has unfortunately mostly fallen over. It is covered with honeybees and others. I don't see many of the white crab spiders on it but did see one very big female today. They may not be as successful on the mint since it is dark and too much contrast. I saw a dark brownish butterfly flit by very fast, couldn't get a good look.

I bought 1 gallon Spiraea douglasii today, but it was discouraging that none of the 3 gal. plants were still in bloom. I also got a Lonicera involucrata and Philadelphus lewisii. Now I have to figure out where to plant them. I will probably wait until Sept. to Oct.

Spirea douglasii is long done blooming now. It flowers in early summer up here but maybe deadheading would prolong flowering. Physocarpus captitus has been about 6 feet tall here for many years but I don't know if butterflies like it. Both of them grow really well in swampy areas, as does Clethra alnifolia. Butterflies do like the flowers of this one and they smell divine. I suspect shrubby dogwood would be a good plant for caterpillars, and maybe wild roses. Certainly alders and birches, probably the native hazelnut as well. The absolute favorite of caterpillars in my yard, hands down, are calla lilies. Go figure.

As for the "to grow or not to grow" thing with noxious weeds, it's a matter of biodiversity. Yes, a stand of blackberries will provide food for birds (mostly starlings.) But consider the fact that a mixed stand of salmonberries, wild roses, snowberries, and Sambucus will provide smaller amounts of food for birds spread out over a much longer period. Many of our native birds rely on these species to see them through critical periods where little else is available to them. Think of how critical the blossoms of salmonberries are to hummingbirds when they first arrive in spring. Basically, biodiversity of plants equals biodiversity of birds and other critters. Plus the mixed shrubbery would be far more attractive than a giant brush heap of blackberries.

Elsewhere here S. douglasii is not done blooming. I just saw some the other day.

"From May into August, many lovely puffy pink flowers .... Practically every wetland path is lined by specimens that have been periodically chopped back. When so treated, a few flower clusters can still be seen into October"

--A. Jacobson, WILD PLANTS OF GREATER SEATTLE - SECOND EDITION

The dark brownish butterfly was likely a Painted Lady or perhaps some angle-wing; they appear as a brown blur when flitting. The wood nymph butterfly is largely brown and common in undeveloped areas, but they tend to bobble and bounce in flight. Skippers hang out on flowers often, their hostplants are various grasses.

I just read this article and the interesting discussion that follows it.
Thought some of you all might like to see it too.

A contrarian will always arise to gain attention no matter the issue. What I find most flawed with his approach is that his view is that "There have been thousands of nonnative species introduced in the United States and they have not caused one native species to go extinct" which misses the entire point (and ignores that introductions here are relatively recent; just wait). There will likely always be small remnants of native species remaining no matter how invasive a newly introduced species is. What matters is what the remaining 99% of the habitat is like...non-diverse, non-supportive of most native species, and poorly functioning. An English ivy desert in a northwest coniferous forest is hardly a desirable environment to be in even if there remain pockets of a few natives here and there.

The number of invasive plants we have in the Northwest is really very small considering the vast numbers of plant species that have been introduced to our region and failed to demonstrate any invasive tendncies. Personally, although in theory my position on this subject is moderate, I don't grow invasive or potentially invasive plants nor do I attempt to defend them. The reason... I'm simply too busy trying to keep up with the other 99.9% of plants that aren't invasive. In other words there's so many interesting ornamental plants out there (many of which provide wildlife habitat, economic benefit, etc. as well), why bother with something controversial? (don't answer that question... LOL)

I brought some Tamarix parviflora to Fronderosa and got quite a few comments on it... "you know that's invasive right" "I wouldn't want that in my garden".... blah blah blah. Well customers still ought to educate themselves (and of course I try to help) to figure out which species are invasive and which aren't. I've stated before that I don't like to throw out all species in a genus just because of one creating a bad reputation. Another example - out of 812 species of eucalyptus, only 3-4 of them are a problem in California. I guess I bring that up to say that for any invasive plant, there's usually something well behaved that can be substituted for it.... or maybe hundreds of things.

Our prairie ecosystems started to decline 100+ years ago with the arrival of non-native European grasses. To me these are some of the worst offending invasive plants (even if they can't colonize closed forest) as they're just so completely beyond control, and don't really have a lot of value as far as I can tell. It's hard to imagine what our prairies might have looked like without them. Well going back farther... I suppose our prairie ecosystems started to decline about 6,000 years ago with the end of the Holocene warm period, and (as has been stated by others in this thread) the areas maintained by burning by the Native Americans might be considered as unnatural relicts from that time.

Weed grasses, especially the ones with rhizomes from #ell, are certainly one of the most extensive problems in my yard, along with blackberry vines, and dandelion, hawkweeds, thistles, etc in the aster family, and very difficult to eradicate for an organic gardener. That's why I personally feel the horror of the "invasive" plant is silly because these are simply the successful plants, some of which seem to be my only real weapon against the grasses and asteraceae. (The situation is different for someone gardening on a city lot, but I have 2 acres which multiplies my problem beyond my ability to fuss over every square foot; I also can't really water most of it as I don't have unlimited time, energy or money). I'm exploring wildflowers as a way to occupy more ground and do less weeding, and particularly wildflowers that are attractive to butterflies, bees, and hummingbirds, or edible. One I'm looking at now on the last count is Aralia racemosa, which has an edible root similar in flavor to sarsaparilla, or root beer. Has anyone here had experience growing it in relation to suppressing weeds, being drought tolerant, and actual usability?

Few decorative or desirable flowering plants will outcompete vigorous grasses here, you need a thin soil where the grass is short and sparse for flowers to be important and lasting components. In nature you see significant displays of sun-loving native wildflowers mostly on bedrock outcroppings (balds) in the Puget Sound area. In the garden it is the under-maintained, even played out lawns that become studded with flowering weeds - or filled with mosses.

Thomas, Perennial Garden Plants (Timber/Sagapress) has a list of Plants for Naturalizing in Grass:

"Areas of rough mown grass - in the open or under trees - which are beautiful with bulbs, are lost and forlorn until September when colchicums and autumn crocuses spring up. It is wisest not to attempt to grow summer-flowering bulbs as well, because their growth interferes with summer mowing. The following plants will hold their own in all but very coarse grass, on account of their running roots or dense leafage; the clumps are highly decorative in summer, to be mown down in autumn"

The list he gives includes Aralia cachemirica.

What I am trying to do is not grow wildflowers in grass, (I tried not mowing our grassy weed area one year with some kind of wildflower meadow in mind, and ended up dealing with big stands of dock going to seed); but trying to grow dense perennials in beds that started out as daylily, iris and rose beds but have become too invaded with weedy grasses. Or I give up on all the flowers, dig them up, and go back to grass that can be mowed. I kept up with weeding all the beds until one year I was gone for the whole month of June and so the weeds went to seed and I can't seem to get them all anymore. I also have a few areas that are shady under trees so could try some woodland plants, though since I don't water much they may need moister soil than I provide. Some of the Aralias sound very interesting since they are edible and seem to cover ground well. I have some woods left with the native plants and could try transplanting them more. I've had success with salal but not so much with Mahonia. We have a road easement on our property that has some native plants which I might need to try to move if they ever try to build the road.

But I have a few beds that are full enough of perennials to actually not need weeding. I would like to achieve that in more beds and also add butterfly and hummingbird flowers. I don't know if they are compatible with the roses, daylilies, etc.

I would think that Thomas' list would fit what you are talking about exactly:

"The following plants will hold their own in all but very coarse grass, on account of their running roots or dense leafage; the clumps are highly decorative in summer, to be mown down in autumn"

Indeed, another in his list of roughly 60 candidates is "Hemerocallis fulva and varieties and vigorous hybrids".

His book actually comes up on the internet.:-) Thanks!