SKU: 29421691087
are blue star ferns toxic to cats

are blue star ferns toxic to cats Blue Star Fern ‘Phlebodium aureum’

Sale price$22.42 Regular price$24.91
Save 10%

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 13 - Jul 18

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

are blue star ferns toxic to cats Blue Star Fern ‘Phlebodium aureum’The Blue Star Fern, known as Phlebodium aureum, is a unique and increasingly popular fern for beginners as needs less humidity than other varieties. Its broad, blue green fronds have an unusual, almost wavy texture that lends an exotic feel to any indoor space. In the wild, it grows epiphytically on trees, making it well suited for mounting on surfaces or planting in hanging baskets where its fronds can cascade beautifully. Native to South and Central

The Blue Star Fern, known as Phlebodium aureum, is a unique and increasingly popular fern for beginners as needs less humidity than other varieties. Its broad, blue-green fronds have an unusual, almost wavy texture that lends an exotic feel to any indoor space. In the wild, it grows epiphytically on trees, making it well-suited for mounting on surfaces or planting in hanging baskets where its fronds can cascade beautifully.

Native to South and Central America, the Blue Star Fern gets its name due to the soft, bluish hue of its fronds that resemble star-like shapes when viewed from above.

It has several other common names such as Blue Star Fern, Cabbage Palm Fern, Golden Polypody, Gold Foot Fern, Hare Foot Fern, and Rabbits Foot Fern.

Its popularity stems not only from its visual appeal but also from its ability to improve indoor air quality, making it an attractive, functional addition to any home or office.

A popular feature of the Blue Star Fern is its deeply lobed, velvety fronds, which can grow up to 2 feet long and spread up to 6 feet wide in ideal conditions.

The fronds emerge from a creeping rhizome, which often has a slightly golden tint, adding an additional layer of color to the plant’s appearance.  Its foliage has a soft, almost fuzzy texture, giving it a unique tactile quality not commonly found in other ferns. 

The large blue star fern is a striking addition to any indoor plant collection, with its vibrant color and unique shape.   Its moderate growth rate allows it to fill its space gradually, making it easy to care for and less prone to outgrowing its container quickly.  

As a non-flowering plant, the Blue Fern does not produce blooms, but its vibrant foliage more than compensates for the lack of flowers, providing year-round greenery and aesthetic appeal. 

When and How to Water Your Blue Star Fern 

The Blue Star Fern requires less water and easier to care for than other ferns. This fern is somewhat more resilient than typical tropical varieties, able to go a bit longer between watering sessions without suffering damage. However, allowing the soil to completely dry out is not recommended, as it can lead to stress and browning of leaves.  

In the spring and fall, during the growing season, your Blue Star Fern requires more frequent watering. Water it thoroughly whenever the top inch of soil feels dry to the touch. In most indoor environments, watering every 7–10 days is ideal, depending on the humidity levels. The goal is to keep the soil evenly moist but not soggy, as waterlogged conditions can harm the plant’s delicate roots. Adjust the frequency based on your home’s temperature and humidity; higher temperatures or drier air may require more frequent watering. 

In late fall and winter, during its dormancy period, the Blue Star Fern’s water needs decrease significantly. Water only when the soil is nearly dry, roughly every two to three weeks, as the plant’s growth slows and its water usage drops. The plant can withstand brief periods of dryness during dormancy but will benefit from occasional misting if indoor air is particularly dry. This more conservative watering schedule helps the fern maintain health without overstimulating it during its resting phase.

Light Requirements – Where to Place Your Blue Star Fern 

When growing indoors, Blue Star Ferns prefer bright, indirect light for around 6–8 hours daily. Position it near a north- or east-facing window where it can receive gentle morning sunlight or filtered light throughout the day.

Direct sunlight should be avoided, as it can cause the leaves to scorch and fade in color.

In lower-light settings, this fern can still thrive, although its growth may slow slightly. Supplemental artificial lighting can help maintain vibrant foliage in dim indoor spaces.

For outdoor cultivation, place your Phlebodium aureum blue star in a shaded or partially shaded area.

A spot under a canopy or larger tree where it receives dappled sunlight for part of the day is ideal.

If the plant shows signs of fading color or wilting, try relocating it to a spot with more filtered shade.

Optimal Soil & Fertilizer Needs 

Blue Star Ferns thrive in well-draining, organic-rich soil that retains moisture but doesn’t become waterlogged. An ideal mix for indoor potted plants is a combination of standard potting soil and orchid bark or perlite to enhance drainage. Ideally, you want to use our specialized potting mix, opens in a new tab that contains 5 natural substrates and organic mycorrhizae to promote the development of a strong root system that helps your ferns to thrive.   

For fertilizer, Blue Star Ferns benefit from light feeding during the growing season, roughly once a year from spring to early fall. Use a balanced, NPK fertilizer with an equal ration of about 5-10-5 to avoid overwhelming the plant. Avoid high-nitrogen fertilizers, as these may encourage foliage growth at the expense of root health. During the dormant winter months, fertilizing holds off, as the fern’s nutrient requirements are minimal when growth slows.

Hardiness Zones & More 

When grown indoors, your Blue Star Fern thrives in moderate, indirect light and prefers a consistent indoor temperature range between 60-75°F, making it ideal for home environments. It does best when shielded from direct sunlight, which can scorch its fronds but also needs ample ambient light to thrive. The Blue Star Fern appreciates moderate humidity levels of 40-60%, which can be achieved with a humidifier or occasional misting, particularly in winter or dry climates.

For outdoor cultivation, this fern is suited for USDA Zones 8-12, where it can survive mild winters but will require a shaded spot to avoid excessive sun exposure. It can withstand temperatures down to 20°F but should be protected from frost and intense afternoon sun.

It also benefits from higher humidity, so if grown in drier zones, placing it near water features or misting it occasionally will help maintain its lush appearance. The blue star fern's dry leaves are a sign that it needs more humidity in its environment. Make sure to mist the plant regularly or place a humidifier nearby to help prevent further leaf dehydration.  

Wildlife Blue Star Fern Attracts the Following Friendly Pollinators 

While Blue Star Fern is not a traditional pollinator attractant like flowering plants, it creates a welcoming environment for beneficial insects that support local biodiversity. Its dense fronds provide shade and moisture, which helps attract small, beneficial creatures in shaded outdoor gardens.

Butterflies
Bees
Hummingbirds
Lady Bugs
Multi Pollinators
Other Birds

According to the ASPCA, Blue Star Fern is non-toxic to humans, cats, dogs, and birds. This makes it an ideal choice for pet-friendly homes, as it poses no risk to animals that may chew on their fronds. 

How to Propagate Your Phlebodium aureum 

To propagate Blue Fern, start by dividing its rhizomes during spring or early summer. Gently remove the plant from its pot, shake off excess soil, and separate the rhizomes into smaller sections, each with fronds and roots. Replant each division in a suitable pot with fresh, well-draining potting mix, water thoroughly, and place in a warm area with indirect light. Within a few weeks, the new divisions should begin to establish, showing signs of growth. 

Key Takeaways

  1. In the wild, it grows epiphytically on trees, making it well-suited for mounting on surfaces or planting in hanging baskets where its fronds can cascade beautifully.
  2. Its unique blue-green, wavy fronds with a soft, almost velvety texture give it a distinctive look, making it a striking and popular choice for indoor decor.
  3. Blue Star Fern is a low-maintenance plant that tolerates lower light levels, and indirect light and requires minimal care compared to many other ferns, making it well-suited for beginners.
  4. The blue fern can tolerate mild frost in USDA zones (8-12) and lower temperatures for short periods, making it versatile for indoor and sheltered outdoor use in suitable climates.
  5. Unlike many other ferns, Blue Star Fern has some drought tolerance and can go without frequent watering, though it prefers consistently moist soil.

The Bottom Line 

Overall, the Blue Star Fern (Phlebodium aureum) is a distinctive and popular houseplant that brings a touch of the tropics indoors with its striking blue-green, wavy fronds and epiphytic nature. Known for its adaptability, this fern thrives in moderate, indirect light and can tolerate occasional drought and lower humidity, making it easier to care for than many other ferns. While it prefers consistently moist soil, it is relatively low-maintenance and capable of withstanding mild frost, making it a versatile option for a range of indoor and sheltered outdoor spaces. With its unique appearance, air-purifying benefits, and pet-safe qualities, the Blue Star Fern is an excellent choice for anyone seeking a beautiful, easy-to-care-for addition to their plant collection. 

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 29421691087

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell are blue star ferns toxic to cats

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.1 ★★★★★
Based on 783 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
J
Verified Purchase
Joe Neal
Los Angeles, US
★★★★★ 5
Great (excellent) details for the date written
Format: Paperback
NOTE: I toned this version down in 2021 – I was in a bad place when I wrote the original and there were some hostile and entirely inaccurate personal remarks in it. A few tables/charts with a wealth of information have tiny text but most of this was easy enough to read. The photos are poorly produced (at least in the paperback version I reviewed), which is sad given they would be so handy otherwise. This is a classic post-war treatise on the weapons used for ground warfare during World War II by the U.S. Army and as such the Marines. It was first published around 1947 when the war was fresh and doubtlessly numerous technical details were still classified. It was written by a man intimately involved in many design projects. The coverage pretty much explains the breadth. Examples of use are included for some weapons and detailed tables of data for many. He explains references to the "long primer" for the 76-mm gun and the 81-mm mortar T1 extension tube. I am happy to have bought it for that and numerous other details. One thing I missed when I first wrote the original rambling, a bit over the top review back in September 2015 was that the 57mm M1 antitank gun is not mentioned even though it was a key component of Infantry weaponry in 1944-45, sometimes maligned but often quite effective when carefully used as noted in many, many detailed accounts. Perhaps it was skipped because it was a revision of the British 6 pounder and not designed by Barnes men? Yet, it is an example of the issues caused by the pre war budget minders forcing the Army into desperate choices as explained later – and the using arms who decided to adopt it almost at the last minute, late in 1943. Until a weapon is adopted by the Army ammunition cannot be developed – it costs too much money and time to do so. Most of the book is positive and ignores failures, posed from the viewpoint of a proud designer not an actual user. Yet those failures illustrate the issues Ordnance had to deal with during the war. The U.S. invented the bazooka as the 2.36-inch model in 1942 yet the Germans fielded the more powerful 8.8-cm (88mm) model in 1944; and the U.S. did not get the 3.5-inch (90mm) into production-ready state until the war was ended. This was caused by offloading development onto people who went out for a “super rocket launcher” that had no place in the war. All too often, some excited designers did indeed get ahead of themselves when it came to what worked but was a bit too much (and ultimately impractical for the Army at the time). The inability to develop hollow-charge (HEAT) ammo for cannon and howitzers to reach its minimum potential (twice the caliber in penetration or better) was common for all countries including the U.S. The 105mm howitzer round was pretty good and while disparaged by all and sundry even the 75mm howitzer’s shell could (and did) take out medium armor. Barnes refers to the M3 and M5 light tank as "excellent" when the tanker's epithet would have been "tin plated coffin with a pea-shooter". Here we have an issue with comparing numbers such as armor thickness and penetration power of guns to facts; it is common to think they were butchered such as in Africa when in fact they fought well enough, flaws and all. But they were not the weapons the tankers wanted (nor deserved), and thus tanker’s complaints were valid. And, yes, they were not seen as a prime resource for fighting German tanks and hence reverted to recon and infantry support roles. Where they continued to meet and destroy German armor (but also be destroyed). Any German field commander would have loved to have a battalion of M5s on hand chasing down and chewing up U.S. troops; the contribution of the men in the light tanks in Europe in 1944 and 1945 is all too often belittled by the “number nerds” who toss the light tanks off as useless. They were anything but useless. Why were the M10, M18, and M36 designed as “Gun Motor Carriages” and not tanks? Because they were developed for the tank destroyer forces and the very bigoted officers who held the most sway on development wanted them to be nothing but “motorized antitank guns”. If they had been designed as tanks that would have invalidated Tank Destroyer Doctrine immediately. And yet, in the end, the men doing the fighting needed and wanted tanks, so they used them as tanks as much as they could, despite the open roof and lack of internal machine guns. It is claimed the gun motor carriages were cheaper than tanks (a specious argument given price varied by manufacturer and ultimately depended more on quantities produced not some arbitrary raw number) but to produce the gun motor carriages for a specialist role that was neither tank nor artillery (albeit they were used for both) was a costly thing to do. The failure to develop a better light tank in time is not mentioned even though the T7 light tank with a 57-mm gun was ready in mid-1942 and could have been in the field around 1943 (the Armored Forces botched that one). The M24 was a nice tank but too late simply because development came too late because development had been stunted badly by congress and it’s miserly pre-1941 budget. There are errors: The design of the M24 began in 1943, not 1945. The 76-mm gun could hardly penetrate the "...heaviest German tank armor." But it could penetrate a lot of armor and the myth that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers is one of those fantasies of the war pursued by people who are glorifying the war not understanding it (most German armor was medium or lighter), let alone the myth that they were always met head-on is ridiculous. The 90-mm gun was not optimized for anti-tank use and hence had the same issues with dealing with the frontal armor of the Panther (though it could handle the Tiger) and yet was better at that than many other guns. The tendency to adapt anti-aircraft guns for anti-tank guns was common and is where Germany got its 88s and the 128mm. The U.S. found it did not need a lot of 90mms (the homeland was not threatened and what it produced was enough for its needs); there was never the demand for a higher altitude version and hence nothing like the 8.8cm FLAK 41 was developed which led to the 8.8cm Kwk43 and Pak43s; yet Ordnance built their own versions of hot 90mm for tank use. I missed the boat in my original review failing to detail how the Army’s main issue was the budget provided by Congress and politicians from 1920 through 1940. They starved the Army; the U.S. was peaceful and they had no interest in making it a military country and as such kept the Army small (and starved the air forces and Navy as well but not as badly). This crippled development; while the Soviets started building a modern Army in 1930 complete with investment in tank forces and tank arsenals; the Germans in 1934 or so; and British in 1934 or so; the U.S. politicians did not begin serious spending on the Army until 1941. Before then, the budget was all about “beans, bullets, and bayonets” and of course bodes to wield them. The Army had to struggle with what it had and put to field what was practical not what was best. Thus, for example, the recoilless rifles (used by the Germans in 1940) did not arrive in U.S. use until 1945. And yet a U.S. officer bult the first recoilless rifle to be used way back around 1916. Indeed, a brief little discussion on how the U.S. produced what it did based on budget would have opened many eyes. The Soviets produced so many thousand T34s for example, more than the U.S. – and in the U.S. the budget people were always saying, “You don’t need any more, stop building them!” As mentioned, the number of 90mm AA guns the U.S. produced was not based on manufacturing capacity but because they didn’t need more. Thus - there is a lot of information and many details many people will never have heard before. There are also many missing details concerning the Ordnance Department struggles to get things done in a very brief time frame thanks to how Congress had refused to let them do anything earlier. Dig into that deeper and you might find it nauseating the way people played games that hindered the U.S. Army in its job of helping beat the Germans. And sometimes couldn't put 2 and 2 together to get the right answer. But, they were human after all, and people do make mistakes. In my original review I argued that “If you want a politics free book you will not get it in this once, not unless you shut your eyes and remain ignorant . . .” but that is wrong. If this was a political book, Barnes might have ripped the budget mongers of the 1920s and 1930s a new sphincter for leaving the Army (and U.S. military as a whole) in such a bad situation as they did when war broke out. But, Barnes had more class than I do.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 19, 2015
P
Verified Purchase
Petey K
Natrona Heights, US
★★★★★ 5
Good content, very small print and photos
Format: Paperback
Get a magnifying glass… the print is tiny. They must have made this book to be a large hard cover because both the print and the photos are so small in paperback. Content looks decent. It’s a gift for my grandson who will probably spend more time with the photos than the reading anyway and his eyesight is better than mine. :D
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 16, 2025
M
Verified Purchase
Museum Man
Boise, US
★★★★★ 4
Printing not up to standards.
Format: Paperback
Printing and pics not up to par.I gifted this book to a coworker and he was not as picky as I.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2020
T
Verified Purchase
TDD
Waukegan, US
★★★★★ 5
Excellent resource
Format: Paperback
Purchased for my teenage son's history research project. Nice compilation, good information and well illustrated.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 29, 2025
D
Verified Purchase
dederose1
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 5
Great for history buff
Format: Paperback
My 13 yr old loves learning about history. This should be a book he enjoys.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 2023

recommand products