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.
Fire Resisting Garden Plants for the Urban Fringe and Rur…: should be avoided in the Building Protection Zone [Texas Building Protection Zone] (mid-scale rating)
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.
4 cited rows from this source; its identity, lineage and tier are stated once.
Primary study Clarke2014: Clarke, P. J., Prior, L. D., French, B. J., Vincent, B., Knox, K. J., & Bowman, D. M. (2014). Using a rainforest-flame forest mosaic to test the hypothesis that leaf and litter fuel flammability is under natural selection. Oecologia, 176, 1123-33.
Shared row context: plant part leaves; device burning bench; site Clarke2014-1; sampling october.
“time to flaming (s): 4.2”
FLAMITS record 1225; Ignitability measurement; fuel dead; predrying yes.
“flaming duration (s): 7”
FLAMITS record 1249; Sustainability measurement; fuel dead; predrying yes.
“time to flaming (s): 11.1”
FLAMITS record 1273; Ignitability measurement; fuel live; predrying no.
“flaming duration (s): 8.6”
FLAMITS record 1297; Sustainability measurement; fuel live; predrying no.
