Enter your ZIP to see whether this is legal to plant in your state, and whether it survives your winter.
English oak has a conflict among the rows in its evidence table. One ecological invasive report is recorded separately from the fire tally, while two hardiness assertions remain together under hardiness evidence. These parts of the record answer different questions about Quercus robur and should not be counted as additional positions in the conflict.
The selected facts on this page belong to English oak rather than to every oak. The evidence table keeps the disagreeing source positions visible without resolving them on the reader's behalf. If that split changes the planting choice, related plants provides cited same-form alternatives while leaving each record's evidence on its own page.
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.
2. Why this plant is relevant here
State distribution
Documented in DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, WV.
Native range
Introduced / established
4 sourced range or established records. This is not an invasive warning.
USDA hardiness
Documented range 4–8.
3. Legal, ecological, and broader status
Legal-list status
Seed-list status
Reported invasive here
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.
Plant hardiness evidence
These values describe the plant source. Your ZIP zone comes from the separate 2023 USDA
Plant Hardiness Zone Map. Whole-zone values stay whole-zone, and a single unresolved value
is not treated as a tolerance range. Different source boundaries stay separate: overlapping
statements are compared independently, while only ranges with no shared zone are called a conflict.
Source prints 5 · single-value meaning unresolved · whole zone precision · source stated
Source taxon: Quercus robur · exact match.
Source location: Cold Hardiness Zone field in the recovered selector record.
Not used for comparison: The recovered selector prints one Cold Hardiness Zone value but does not define it as a minimum threshold or a one-zone range.
4–8 explicit range · whole zone precision · source stated
Source taxon: Quercus robur · exact match.
Source location: Table 1, tree row.
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.
Eastern United States Fire Performance Plant Selector: Landscape Zone 3 — 10–30 ft from the structure; thin vegetation, remove debris, and minimize plant massing [Fire Performance Plant Selector landscape zone] (with its recommendation)
Fire Resisting Garden Plants for the Urban Fringe and Rur…: remove from the Building Protection Zone; avoid in the Fuel Modified Zone [Texas Building Protection Zone] (with its avoid rating)
Guía de pirojardinería: suitable inside or outside the 25-metre maximum-risk zone [girona-2020-iuf-25m-suitability] (with its recommendation)
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.
Quercus robur is rated “RECOMENDADA” by the guide's qualitative IUF garden-suitability method. The method assumes species-specific care and integrates fire evidence with fuel structure, maintenance, origin, invasiveness, and expert fire-service experience.
Low Flammability Plants directory — Fire and Emergency New Zealand (plant flammability testing at Lincoln University) · 2026 · original sourcePrimary evidenceLab-testedlineage: lincoln-nz-tree
“High flammability”
High flammability classification. On FENZ's high-flammability environmental weeds list (2024 DOC list).
Listed without a rating (62)Corroboration (62 rows from 1 source)
62 cited rows from this source; its identity, lineage and tier are stated once.
Primary study Nunez1996: Nunez-Regueira, L., Anon, J. A. R., & Castineiras, J. P. (1996). Calorific values and flammability of forest species in Galicia. Coastal and hillside zones. Bioresource Technology, 57, 283-289.
Shared row context: plant part litter; fuel all; predrying no; site Nunez1996-1.
FLAMITS record 9849; Ignitability measurement; device epiradiator; sampling spring.
“flammability value: 5”
FLAMITS record 9858; Ignitability measurement; device epiradiator; sampling summer.
“flammability value: 4”
FLAMITS record 9867; Ignitability measurement; device epiradiator; sampling autumn.
“flammability value: 4”
FLAMITS record 9876; Ignitability measurement; device epiradiator; sampling winter.
Primary study Zhao2018: Zhao, W., van Logtestijn, R. S., van der Werf, G. R., van Hal, J. R., & Cornelissen, J. H. (2018). Disentangling effects of key coarse woody debris fuel properties on its combustion, consumption and carbon gas emissions during experimental laboratory fire. Forest ecology and management, 427, 275-288.
Shared row context: plant part litter; fuel all; predrying yes; device burning bench; site Zhao2018-1; sampling november and december.
Primary study Zhao2019: Zhao, W., van Logtestijn, R. S., van Hal, J. R., Dong, M., & Cornelissen, J. H. (2019). Non-additive effects of leaf and twig mixtures from different tree species on experimental litter-bed flammability. Plant and Soil, 436, 311-324.
FLAMITS record 14737; Sustainability measurement; plant part leaves.
“burning duration (s): 392.1”
FLAMITS record 14738; Sustainability measurement; plant part twigs.
Shared measurement context: Consumability measurement; plant part leaves.
“burnt biomass (%): 8”
FLAMITS record 14745.
“burnt biomass (%): 99.05”
FLAMITS record 14753.
Shared measurement context: Consumability measurement; plant part twigs.
“burnt biomass (%): 6”
FLAMITS record 14746.
“burnt biomass (%): 99.02”
FLAMITS record 14754.
Primary study Martinka2016: Martinka, J., Ka?íková, D., Rantuch, P., & Balog, K. (2016). Investigation of the influence of spruce and oak wood heat treatment upon heat release rate and propensity for fire propagation in the flashover phase. Acta Facultatis Xylologiae, 58(1), 514.
Shared row context: plant part wood; fuel dead; predrying yes; device calorimeter; site Martinka2016-1; sampling ND.
Primary study Renner2023: Renner, J. S., Mensah, R. A., Jiang, L., & Xu, Q. (2023). A critical assessment of the fire properties of different wood species and bark from small-and bench-scale fire experiments. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 148, 1423-1434.
Shared row context: Combustibility measurement; plant part wood; fuel live; predrying yes; device calorimeter; site Renner2023-1; sampling ND.
