United States / Grow / cedar

cedar (Cedrus spp.)
Photo: (c) Mourad Harzallah, some rights reserved (CC BY) (CC BY), via iNaturalist. Species-typical, not necessarily this cultivar.

cedar

Cedrus spp. (accepted: Cedrus) · Pinaceae · all Cedrus records · Wikipedia

View Saved

Is this one for your yard?

Enter your ZIP to see whether this is legal to plant in your state, and whether it survives your winter.

Cedar is not reliably fire resistant; three sources flag it as a hazard, while Michigan State recommends it.

The City of Ashland prohibits new planting or propagation of Cedrus species within 30 feet of any structure, including one on an adjacent lot. Fire Safe Marin lists cedar as fire-prone in Marin County. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension also places cedar among Yavapai County’s fire-prone plants, which it says may ignite readily and burn intensely.

Michigan State University Extension reaches the opposite conclusion, listing Cedrus species as wildfire-resistant and recommended for Michigan’s climate. This is a genuine disagreement, but the sources are answering different regional and practical questions. Michigan’s guidance is a recommended plant list, Marin’s is expert-curated local guidance, and Ashland’s finding carries the force of a municipal planting restriction.

No experimental rating or common numerical scale ties these judgments together, so Michigan’s recommendation does not cancel the western warnings. Cedar may be accepted in a Michigan landscape yet treated as fire-prone in parts of California and Arizona, and prohibited near structures in Ashland. For a homeowner, the local rule and local fire guidance should decide the question, especially where planting distance is regulated.

Fire-resistant trees instead

Form
tree
Rated in
Ashland, Oregon; Marin County, California; Michigan / Great Lakes; Yavapai County, Arizona
On this lot

1. Fire evidence and conditions

Fire evidence
Mixed evidence — location does not change the cited classification.
Placement evidence
1 source placement record; source schemes remain separate.
Evidence regions
Ashland, Oregon; Marin County, California; Michigan / Great Lakes; Yavapai County, Arizona
Typed publication scope: 4 scopes across 4 cited fire sources
  • Prohibited Flammable Plants (Ashland Municipal Code 9.04) · Official scoped edition
    • City of Ashland (OR footprint); partial normalized coverage · 2026-08-26

      This is a City of Ashland adoption fact, not statewide Oregon guidance or an experimental flammability result. FireApproved publishes 24 taxonomy-safe owners as city-level regulatory context. It applies to new planting and propagation within 30 feet of structures, including structures on adjacent lots; it is not projected as a blanket removal order for every established listed plant.

  • Fire-Resistant Plants Common to Marin County · Official scoped edition
    • Marin County (CA footprint); partial normalized coverage · 2019-01-01

      The publication is explicitly limited to plants common to Marin County. FireApproved publishes 104 exact owners as Marin regional context while retaining its placement, spacing, irrigation, and maintenance boundary. It is not statewide California guidance or parcel suitability.

  • Wildfire-resistant Landscape Plants for Michigan (Extension Bulletin E2948) · Official scoped edition
    • MI; partial normalized coverage · 2007-01-01

      Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E2948 is explicitly a list of wildfire-resistant landscape plants for Michigan and includes a Michigan-native field. FireApproved publishes 221 exact GBIF owners from 226 represented source rows and holds 15 complex or non-exact rows. This dated publication scope is not a current site-suitability determination.

  • Fire-Resistant and Fire-Prone Plants Common to Yavapai County (Bulletin 34) · Official scoped edition
    • Yavapai County (AZ footprint); partial normalized coverage · 2025-03-14

      University of Arizona Cooperative Extension authors Bulletin 34 for Yavapai County. FireApproved publishes 198 exact source owners from its resistant and prone tables and keeps the county boundary visible. County publication scope is regional Arizona context, never statewide scope.

2. Why this plant is relevant here

State distribution
Documented in MI.

3. Legal, ecological, and broader status

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.

Where its sources say to plant it

Placement rules below use each source's own distances or named zones, tied to its rating. They are not interchangeable with the directory's current Zone 0 guidance.

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.

Recommends (1)

Avoids (3)

Corroboration (2 rows from 2 sources)

Fire-resistant trees instead

Fire-resistant trees listed above

Last verified 2026-08-23. JSON (CC BY 4.0)

Profiles: USDA PLANTS · GBIF · iNaturalist · Wikidata · Wikipedia · ITIS

Cedrus spp. (Cedar). FireApproved. https://fireapproved.com/plants/cedrus/. Last verified 2026-08-23.