[asynchronous13]

I grew up believing many of the myths that this article addresses. So I'm hesitant to believe it entirely without verifying additional sources. In particular, this quote seems misleading:

> the U.S. Forest Service reports that kudzu occupies, to some degree, about 227,000 acres of forestland

I quickly verified this statistic. But I know that "forestland" is a specific category of land. What about non-forestland? How many acres of kudzu are there on land that is not considered forestland?

> experts estimate that kudzu covers another 500,000 acres in the South’s cities and suburbs

I found this statistic about 500,000 acres quoted in several places, but didn't find which experts came up with that number. Still, it was very quick to find double the acreage in one specific type of non-forestland.

That doesn't even begin to touch non-forestland countryside (i.e. non-city, non-suburb)

The US Forest Service estimates that kudzu adds 2,500 acres each year. US Department of Agriculture estimates that it spreads by 150,000 acres per year. I don't think this is a discrepancy, just that each agency is looking at specific land types and uses.

It seems like this article is seriously cherry picking data to make it seem like kudzu is less of an issue.

[mycall]

Another thing is why is growth not exponential and is linear per year? That seems fishy as well.