Enter your ZIP to see whether this is legal to plant in your state, and whether it survives your winter.
Common fiddleneck’s measured burning rate does not establish that it is fire resistant.
Dryad’s FLAMITS plant-trait database reports that predried common fiddleneck litter burned across a testing bench at 0.38 centimetres per second. That result comes from work by Fuentes-Ramirez and colleagues published in 2016. It describes how fast burning spread through the tested material, rather than how readily the plant caught fire.
The distinction matters because fire resistance cannot be read straight from a speed. FLAMITS preserves measurements with their experimental context and does not apply a single recommendation threshold across different variables, testing devices and plant parts. Calling this result low or high would require a suitable comparison and an interpretation the database does not assign. A spread measurement also answers a different question from how much heat material releases as it burns.
For a homeowner, the useful finding concerns dried litter, rather than the whole growing plant. The bench result gives a concrete measure of what that material did under the test conditions. It cannot, by itself, establish how common fiddleneck would behave in a garden fire or justify choosing it for fire resistance.
Form
perennial
Region
EE. UU.
Rated in
Global
On this lot
1. Fire evidence and conditions
Fire evidence
Mixed evidence — location does not change the cited classification.
Fire-performance conditions
Fire ecology context
Placement evidence
Evidence regions
Global
Maintenance
2. Why this plant is relevant here
State distribution
Native range
Current cited native range in AZ, CA, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA.
Introduced / established
18 sourced range or established records. This is not an invasive warning.
USDA hardiness
3. Legal, ecological, and broader status
Legal-list status
Seed-list status
Reported invasive here
1 ecological invasive report.
Broader regional context
Federal context
How to read this page
The status above is computed from the cited rows below: independent recommendations can support a fire-resistant result, an avoid row can produce keep-away, and disagreement stays visible as conflict. Placement notes preserve each source’s own scheme rather than translating unlike rules into one scale. This is evidence about a plant, not permission to plant it in every part of the defensible space; Zone 0 remains noncombustible.
Native and introduced range evidence
These are exact U.S. botanical-area records from the cited range source. Native and
introduced describe biogeographic relationship, not fire performance or planting approval.
Doubtful and extinct rows stay visible but do not count as current presence.
The lossless worldwide derivative is retained once in the research corpus; object pages repeat only exact U.S. areas needed by the local lens. The JSON twin carries the same page assertions.
The evidence
Grouped by what each source concluded. Primary evidence rated the plant itself
(a lab, field program, or original curation); corroboration compiled or
republished another source's rating and resolves to its root lineage.
Listed without a rating (8)Corroboration (8 rows from 1 source)
8 cited rows from this source; its identity, lineage and tier are stated once.
Primary study Fuentes2016: Fuentes-Ramirez, A., Veldman, J. W., Holzapfel, C., & Moloney, K. A. (2016). Spreaders, igniters, and burning shrubs: plant flammability explains novel fire dynamics in grass-invaded deserts. Ecological Applications, 26, 2311-2322.
Shared row context: plant part litter; fuel all; predrying yes; device burning bench; site Fuentes2016-1; sampling june to july.
