Datasheet
Murdannia nudiflora (doveweed)
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate report
Identity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Aneilema malabaricum (L.) Merr.
- Aneilema nudicaule (Burm. f.) G. Don
- Aneilema nudiflorum (L.) Sweet
- Aneilema nudiflorum (L.) Wall
- Commelina nudiflora L.
- Murdannia malabarica (L.) Brückn.
International Common Names
- Spanish: anagalide azul (Mexico)
Local Common Names
- Bangladesh: kundali
- Brazil: trapoeraba
- Colombia: pinita
- India: choti kankaua
- Indonesia: rumput lidah lembu; rumput tapak burung
- Malaysia: rumput kupu-kupu; rumput sur
- Mauritius: herbe aux archons
- Mexico: cohitre; comelina; maclalillo
- Philippines: alibangon; bangar na lalake; katkatauang; kohasi; kolasi; olikbangon
- Suriname: gadodede
- Thailand: kinkung noi; phak-prap
- Uganda: Mickey Mouse; vanda
- USA: nakedstem dewflower; spreading dayflower
- Venezuela: suelda con suelda
- Vietnam: loa-trai hoa-tran
EPPO code
- MUDNU (Murdannia nudiflora)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageM. nudiflora is classified as one of the world's worst weeds by Holm et al. (1977), infesting no less than 16 crops in 23 countries. It is a major weed species in rice and other crops (Moody, 1989), and is a moderately invasive weed species both in agricultural crops and non-agricultural areas in South and South-east Asia (Waterhouse, 1993). Its special ability to root easily at the nodes, propagating clonally through cut stems and dispersal during tillage and land preparation make this weed difficult to control. This trait coupled with its ability to adapt and survive a wide ecological window of soil types, pH, moisture availability and soil drainage makes M. nudiflora a weed to watch for potential spread into new areas in near future, and a species under the 'alert list' by the Invasive Species Specialist Group.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Monocotyledonae
- Order: Commelinales
- Family: Commelinaceae
- Genus: Murdannia
- Species: Murdannia nudiflora
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageMurdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan is one of only two recognized species in the genus Murdannia, the other being Murdannia spirata (L.) G. Brückn. Both were previously included in the genus Commelina before being transferred. A third species of Mudannia, Murdannia keisak (Hassk.) Hand. -Mazz. has since been transferred to the closely related genus Aneilema. Commelina nudiflora L. is correctly a synonym of M. nudiflora. Commelina nudiflora auct. non L. (and C. communis) have occasionally been used as synonyms of Commelina diffusa Burm. f., but these names have been used by different authors for more than one taxon and are incorrect when applied to C. diffusa.
Description
Top of pageIt is an annual or perennial herb, 8-115 cm tall, with a basal leaf rosette, disappearing or absent in older plants, with one to several creeping leafy branches, being either erect, semi-erect, ascendant, or at the base. Leaves are alternately arranged, sessile, larger ones linear-lanceolate, smaller ones oblong-ovate, glabrous, or with sparsely-arranged trichomes or hairs, 1.7-28 or 1.7-45 cm x 5-25 mm, with a broad leaf base, acute apex, short leaf sheath, and villous. Roots are normal, not swollen. Inflorescences terminally- or axillary-arranged, either unbranched or with 2-3 branches, no large cucullate bracts; bracts 25-35 mm oblong-cucullate, rather thin, membranous, caducous, located at the base of 25-40 mm long, glabrous pedicels, sepals 3, green, oblong, obtuse, glabrous, 3.5-5.0 mm long, petals 3, oblong to ovate-oblong, obtuse, purplish to magenta in colour, 4.5-5.5 mm long. Stamens free, 2 fertile with densely long-hairy filaments and bluish-coloured anthers; staminoids 4, with long-bearded filaments, the 3 opposite the petals with thickened, 3-lobed, light yellow coloured top, the fourth much reduced in size. The ovary is glabrous. Fruits condensed, ellipsoid-globose, shortly acuminate, glabrous, 4-6 mm in diameter, 3-loculate, each cell with 1-2 seeds, rarely with more than 6 seeds per fruit. Seeds smooth to coarse reticulate, ribbed.
Plant Type
Top of pageAnnual
Broadleaved
Herbaceous
Perennial
Seed propagated
Vegetatively propagated
Distribution
Top of pageMurdannia nudiflora is native to the Old World tropics, possibly India, and is a common weed from India to China, the Ryukyu archipelago of Japan, and Malaysia (Holm et al., 1977). It has now spread to other tropical and sub-tropical parts of Africa, Asia, Oceania, Central, North and South Americas, invading both the agricultural and non-agricultural areas (Burkill, 1935; Holm et al., 1977). Its present distribution is regarded as pantropical (USDA-ARS, 2003).
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
| Country | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | References | Notes | ASIA |
| Bangladesh | Present | | Native | | | Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977; Karim 2003 | |
| Bhutan | Present | | Native | | Not invasive | Noltie, 1994 | |
| Brunei Darussalam | Present | | Introduced | | | Waterhouse, 1993 | |
| India | | | | | | | |
| -Assam | Present | | | | | Nilendu et al., 2004 | |
| -Bihar | Present | | Native | | | Satpathi, 1999; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| -Uttar Pradesh | Present | | | | Not invasive | Pandey & Shukla, 2001 | |
| -West Bengal | Present | | Native | | Not invasive | Satpathi, 1999; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Indonesia | | | | | | | |
| -Irian Jaya | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Soerjani et al., 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| -Java | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Soerjani et al., 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977; Soerdasan et al., 1974 | |
| -Kalimantan | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Soerjani et al., 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| -Sumatra | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Soerjani et al., 1987; Waterhouse, 1993; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Japan | Present | | | | | Nakamura, 2015 | Shinaikawa, Kurume-shi, Fukuoka Pref., northern Kyushu |
| -Kyushu | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Malaysia | | | | | | | |
| -Peninsular Malaysia | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Waterhouse, 1993; Baki et al., 1997; Holm et al., 1977; Baki & Khir, 1991 | |
| -Sabah | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Waterhouse, 1993; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| -Sarawak | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Waterhouse, 1993; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Myanmar | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Waterhouse, 1993 | |
| Nepal | Present | | | | | Dangol, 2001 | |
| Pakistan | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Waterhouse, 1993 | |
| Philippines | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Waterhouse, 1993; Holm et al., 1977; Moody, 1989; Pancho & Obien, 1995 | |
| Sri Lanka | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977; Moody, 1989 | |
| Taiwan | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Thailand | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977; Moody, 1989 | |
| Vietnam | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Galinato et al., 1999; Holm et al., 1977; Moody, 1989 | |
AFRICA |
| Angola | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Benin | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Burkina Faso | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Burundi | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Cameroon | Widespread | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Congo | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Congo Democratic Republic | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Gambia | Absent, formerly present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Ghana | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Guinea | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Guinea-Bissau | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Kenya | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Mauritius | Present | | Introduced | | | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Nigeria | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Sierra Leone | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Brennan, 1968 | |
| South Africa | Present | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Tanzania | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Uganda | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
NORTH AMERICA |
| Mexico | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Baker & Zettler, 1988; Holm et al., 1977 | |
| USA | | | | | | | |
| -Alabama | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -Florida | Present | | Introduced | | | Baker & Zettler, 1988; Holm et al., 1977; Baker & Zettler, USDA-NRCS. 2002 | |
| -Georgia | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -Hawaii | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -Louisiana | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -Mississippi | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -North Carolina | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -South Carolina | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| -Texas | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN |
| Costa Rica | Present | | | | | Rojas et al., 2002 | |
| Haiti | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Puerto Rico | Present | | Introduced | | | USDA-NRCS, 2002 | |
| Trinidad and Tobago | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
SOUTH AMERICA |
| Colombia | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Plaza & Forero, 1998; Holm et al., 1977; Bastidas-Lopez, 1996 | |
| French Guiana | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Guyana | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Suriname | Present | | Introduced | | | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Venezuela | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
EUROPE |
| Czechoslovakia (former) | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Baker & Zettler, 1988 | |
OCEANIA |
| Fiji | Widespread | | Introduced | | Invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
| Guam | Present | | Introduced | | | Brennan, 1968 | |
| New Caledonia | Present | | Introduced | | Not invasive | Holm et al., 1977 | |
Risk of Introduction
Top of pageThe relatively free or unrestricted movement of plants or plant parts within each country in Asia, Africa or Latin America makes it possible that both seeds and vegetative parts of M. nudiflora can be transported or dispersed to different parts of those countries where the weed is prevalent, unhindered, principally through its use as animal fodder. Sharing of agricultural implements, especially those tillage and harvesting implements among farmers either through the hire-for-service by private individuals or cooperatives may also help to disperse the propagules from one locality to another.
Habitat
Top of page
M. nudiflora is found in the tropics and subtropics on derelict or abandoned land, roadsides, and often in moist, waterlogged places being almost sub-aquatic, along the banks of irrigation canals, ditches and dikes, in rice paddies and in other lowland crops, field borders and wet pasture lands. In temperate regions it is widespread in moist, often waterlogged, arable and non-arable lands in open places.
Habitat List
Top of page| Category | Habitat | Presence | Status | | Terrestrial-managed |
| Cultivated / agricultural land | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Disturbed areas | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Managed grasslands (grazing systems) | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production) | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Rail / roadsides | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Urban / peri-urban areas | Present, no further details | |
| Terrestrial-natural/semi-natural |
| Riverbanks | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Wetlands | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageIt is a principal weed of peanuts, lowland and upland rice, tea, and maize in Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka (Soerdarsan et al., 1974; Baki and Md Khir, 1983; Soerjani et al., 1987; Pancho and Obien, 1995). It is a weed of rice in the eastern plains of Colombia (Bastidas-Lopez, 1996; Plaza and Forero, 1998), bananas, citrus, sugarcane, vegetables, rice, maize and coffee in Mexico (Holm et al., 1977), pineapples in Hawaii; Indonesia, South Africa, Malaysia and the Philippines (Holm et al., 1977; Pancho and Obien, 1995; Baki et al., 1997), and taro in Fiji and Hawaii (Holm et al., 1977). Galinato et al. (1999) reported widespread occurrence of the weed in teak, tea, oil palm, chincona, cotton and coffee plantations, and in arable lands.
Growth Stages
Top of pageSeedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
Biology and Ecology
Top of pagePhysiology and Phenology
Flowers open only for a few hours, then wilt. The weed produces 500-2,200 seeds per plant, and there are 1,000 seeds/g. In tropical and subtropical areas it is mostly a perennial plant, whereas it becomes an annual in temperate regions.
Reproductive Biology
Although M. nudiflora reproduces through seed and vegetative propagation, the time- and environment-mediated loss of seed viability limits population increase by sexual means. Flowers open only for a few hours, then wilt. An unpublished study recorded that a single plant of M. nudiflora produced less than 100 seeds per plant in 3.5 months of its growth cycle (M Azmi, MARDI Food and Industrial Crops Research Centre, Penang, Malaysia, personal communication, 2003). Less than 60% of the seeds produced remained viable after 6 months under ambient temperature of 23°C (night) and 35°C (day). Seed viability was less than 15% when buried in moist paddy soil for 6 months, underlying high percentages of seed decay when exposed to the soil environment. No seeds were viable a year after production, irrespective of whether they were exposed to the soil environment or kept under the ambient temperature stated above (M Azmi, MARDI Food and Industrial Crops Research Centre, Penang, Malaysia, personal communication, 2003).
Arguably, the species has to rely on vegetative propagation to ensure a continuous population increase, and there is a need to obtain essential plant resources through roots produced at the stolon nodes. Seeds and stolon parts are dispersed principally via wind and water, and through human activities such as agriculture. The weed is hydrochorous: the mode of propagation and dispersal is through seeds and stolon fragments. The plant roots easily at the nodes of the creeping stolons, and will do so when cut or broken, especially during cultivation and tillage operations. In fact these stem cuttings may survive for several days to several weeks on the soil surface before eventually taking root, notably under moist or waterlogged conditions.
Environmental Requirements
M. nudiflora prevails under a wide range of environmental conditions with varying soil types, pH, moisture conditions, nutrient status, high light exposure or shade, and competition with crops and other plants. These crops include rubber, oil palm, cocoa, coffee and groundnuts, which are generally planted in well-drained soils, either in lowland or higher altitudes, and the weed occurs under varying degrees of shade. In non-crop situations, the weed can tolerate soil pH ranging from <4.0 (peat soil) (Masayu, 1995; Baki et al., 1997) to >7.0 (calcareous soils). In rice or on the banks of irrigation canals and drains, rivers, etc., populations of M. nudiflora prevail under wet or waterlogged conditions where soil pH is often low (acidic). It appears tolerant to a wide range of conditions, in either open situations or in rather deeply shaded sites, and at low altitude or at altitudes of 1800 m or higher.
Associations
M. nudiflora as a component of weed flora, together with other weed species prevailing on arable peat, and lowland irrigated and non-irrigated rice in Malaysia (Baki et al., 1997), displayed an aggregated pattern of spatial distribution based on Lloyd's mean crowding, Lloyd's patchiness or variance-to-mean ratio dispersion indices. Negative associations were observed between Boerhavia diffusa and several weed species, one of which was M. nudiflora in highly disturbed sites in Uttar Pradesh, India (Pandey and Shukla, 2001).
Air Temperature
Top of page| Parameter | Lower limit | Upper limit | | Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) | 5 | |
| Mean annual temperature (ºC) | 10 | 33 |
| Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) | 33 | 38 |
| Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) | 8 | 12 |
Rainfall
Top of page| Parameter | Lower limit | Upper limit | Description | | Mean annual rainfall | 275 | 2500 | mm; lower/upper limits |
Soil Tolerances
Top of pageSoil drainage
- free
- impeded
- seasonally waterlogged
Soil reaction
Soil texture
Special soil tolerances
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageBastidas-Lopez (1996) cited the prevalence of phytophagous insects as natural enemies on weeds, including M. nudiflora, in the eastern plain of Colombia. M. nudiflora is also a host of nematodes such as Pratylenchus pratensis and Meloidogyne arenaria (Valdez, 1968), the fungus Pythium arrhenomanes (Sideris, 1931), and the viruses Cucumber mosaic virus (Anon, 1960), Southern celery mosaic virus (King, 1966), Tomato mosaic virus and Clover yellow-vein virus (Baker and Zettler, 1988). M. nudiflora is an ovipositional host of the plant hopper Nisia carolinensis that is common in rice field habitats, and is a host of the hairy caterpillar Diacrisia obliquais also noted as feeding on aerial parts of the plant, mostly leaves and stems, in West Bengal, India but is not specific to this genus (Satpathi, 1999). The weed is also a host to rice sheath blight caused by Rhizoctonia solani (Galinato et al., 1999).
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageNatural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Floods and running water or wind can help to disperse seeds, and water may be an important means for dispersal of vegetative propagules, notably the stolons and other plant parts of M. nudiflora.
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
Animal grazing and/or trampling can produce many stolon fragments which can root easily at the nodes, given enough moisture and the availability of safe sites (sensu Harper, 1977), leading to the production of numerous viable propagules. M. nudiflora is used as fodder for animals and as a food and medicine by man (Burkill, 1935; Holm et al., 1977; Soerjani et al., 1987) and vegetative parts of the weed easily are thus dispersed or moved from place to place both by man and animals. It is not known whether seeds are dispersed through faecal droppings of animals or by other means.
Agricultural Practices
It is possible that the weed can be dispersed during tillage or land preparation or harvests through tillage and harvesting implements. This is especially so for the stem cuttings produced through trampling or land preparation by draught animals or tillage and harvesting implements.
Accidental Introduction
Grain and seed imports may bring in seeds of M. nudiflora as impurities when the weed is prevalent in areas where the original grain or seed were harvested (SS Sastroutomo, CABI-SEARC, Malaysia, personal communication, 2003).
Intentional Introduction
No records of intentional introduction of M. nudiflora have been found.
Pathway Vectors
Top of page| Vector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References | | Soil, sand, gravel etc. | Soil and water. | Yes | | |
Plant Trade
Top of page| Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport | | Bark |
| Bulbs, Tubers, Corms, Rhizomes |
| Growing medium accompanying plants |
| Leaves |
| Seedlings, Micropropagated plants |
| Wood |
Impact Summary
Top of page| Category | Impact | | Animal/plant collections | None |
| Animal/plant products | None |
| Biodiversity (generally) | Negative |
| Crop production | Negative |
| Environment (generally) | None |
| Livestock production | Negative |
| Native flora | Negative |
| Tourism | None |
| Trade/international relations | None |
| Transport/travel | None |
Impact
Top of pageIt is a principal weed, reducing economic yields of peanuts, lowland and upland rice, tea, and maize, in Indonesia, Philippines and Sri Lanka (Soerdarsan et al., 1974; Baki and Md Khir, 1983; Soerjani et al., 1987; Pancho and Obien, 1995). Plant growth and height of rice is reduced in rice in the Eastern Plains of Colombia (Bastidas-Lopez, 1996; Plaza and Forero, 1998). The weed has negative effects on bananas, citrus, sugarcane, vegetables, rice and coffee in Mexico (Holm et al., 1977); pineapples in Hawaii, Indonesia, South Africa, Malaysia and the Philippines (Holm et al., 1977; Pancho and Obien, 1995; Baki et al., 1997) and taro in Fiji and Hawaii (Holm et al., 1977).
The weed is also a host of various crop pests and pathogens which have effects on crop growth and production. These include Pratylenchus pratensis and Meloidogyne arenaria (Valdez, 1968), Pythium arrhenomanes (Sideris, 1931), cucumber mosaic virus (Anon, 1960), southern celery mosaic virus (King, 1966), tomato mosaic virus, and clover yellow vein virus (Baker and Zettler, 1988).
Environmental Impact
Top of pageThere is no published information available on the environmental impact due to the presence of M. nudiflora in agricultural or non-agricultural lands. Nevertheless, it may be argued that the presence of the weed along with other weed species can have a positive impact in open, derelict, or even in arable lands by preventing soil erosion especially on slopes, riverbanks, ditches, or irrigation and drainage canals.
Impact: Biodiversity
Top of pageBeing a moderately invasive species, M. nudiflora invades open spaces in both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. Serious competition and replacement of endemic species in parks and protected areas by M. nudiflora have not been recorded to date. Pandey and Shukla (2001) cited negative associations between M. nudiflora and Boerhavia diffusa in low, moderately, and highly disturbed grasslands in north east Uttar Pradesh, India.
Social Impact
Top of pageM. nudiflora is prevalent as a principal weed in rice, coffee, maize, tea, and a host of other economic crops, reducing crop growth and yields: weeding operations are thus an important and necessary post-planting activity among farmers. Weeding of course reduces the time otherwise available for other social or economic activities for farmers.
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of pageImpact mechanisms
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
Impact outcomes
- Negatively impacts agriculture
Invasiveness
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
Likelihood of entry/control
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
Uses
Top of pageM. nudiflora is used as fodder for animals in several countries, but Holm et al. (1977) considered that the high moisture content meant that it was not of much forage value. It is eaten as a vegetable during famine in India, considered as a palatable vegetable elsewhere and leaves are used as poultice in Indonesia (Holm et al., 1977; Soerjani et al., 1987).
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pageM. nudiflora is similar to Murdannia spirata (L.) G. Brückn., although the latter species has very shortly pedunculate inflorescences, persistent floral bracts, 3 fertile stamens, and non-congested fruits with more than 6 seeds per fruit (Soerjani et al., 1987). Occasionally M. nudiflora is mistakenly identified as C. diffusa (Everaarts, 1981), despite quite distinct morphological differences between them, the former with narrow leaf blades and yellowish petals in the flowers as opposed to wide size leaf blades, and bright blue petals in the latter species. M. nudiflora was treated together with the closely-related species Commelina benghalensis and C. diffusa by Holm et al. (1977) though easily separated morphologically.
Prevention and Control
Top of pageCultural Control Burning of straw, stubble and weeds after harvesting rice, maize or vegetables prior to tillage operations and replanting/sowing of new crops are a common practice in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and elsewhere. Where M. nudiflora does manage to survive, the populations are much reduced or controllable in the following season. Grazing by animals helps reduce weed populations, either post-harvest in rice, maize, vegetables, or within plantation crops (rubber, oil palm, cocoa). Exploitation by animals (grazing, used as poultices and harvested animal fodder), or man (eaten as palatable vegetable in Indonesia and India) also reduces the effects of the weed though does not eliminate it (Burkill, 1935; Holm et al., 1977; Soerjani et al., 1987).
Mechanical Control Farmers in Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere control M. nudiflora manually by hand weeding, hoeing or cutting with machete (Wilson, 1981; Soerjani et al., 1987; Pancho and Obien, 1995).
Chemical Control Wilson (1981) reported that bentazone applied as an early post-emergence herbicide either singularly or in mixtures was particularly effective in controlling M. nudiflora and other species of the family Commelinaceae. Also, metribuzin applied as pre-emergence alone or in mixtures gave satisfactory control in many countries. The efficacy of triazines and 2,4-D against the weed were variable, although these herbicides were moderately effective when applied in mixtures. In tea plantations in Indonesia, glyphosate was effective as a broad-spectrum herbicide, controlling several weed species including M. nudiflora (Soerdasan et al., 1974). In contrast, MSMA + 2,4-D + dalapon applied as a mixture increased the population of M. nudiflora. Good control of the weed can be achieved with 2,4-D or MCPA applied 20-30 days after emergence (Galinato et al., 1999).
Biological Control There is no published information available on the biological control of M. nudiflora.
Integrated ControlThere is no available information on research and practices pertaining to the integrated control of M. nudiflora per se in the field. However, tillage operation, stubble or straw burning after harvest, animal grazing, and chemical, mechanical, and manual weeding, employed alone, or in sequence to each other are being practised by farmers to control weeds, and in cases where M. nudiflora is incidentally prevalent.
References
Top of pageAnon., 1960. Index of Plant Diseases in the United States. Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 165. Washington, USA: United States Department of Agriculture.
Baker CA, Zettler FW, 1988. Viruses infecting wild and cultivated species of the Commelinaceae. Plant Disease, 72(6):513-518
Baki BB, Feeny WNY, Kwon WY, 1997. Weed flora of arable peat in Selangor, Malaysia - Quantitative and spatial pattern analyses. Korean Journal of Weed Science, 17(4):382-389.
Baki BB, Md Khir AR, 1983. Weeds in major rice growing areas in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Mohamed R, Amartalingom R, eds. Detection and classification of groups of ecologically related species by multivariate analysis. Proceedings of the Symposium on Weed Science in the Tropics, 4-5 October 1983. Serdang, Malaysia: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, 21-34.
Bastidas-L=pez H, 1996. Importance of weeds in the Eastern Plains of Colombia. Arroz, 45(404):36-38.
Brennan JPM, 1968. Commelinaceae. In: Hutchinson J, Dalziel, JM, Hepper FN, eds. Flora of West Tropical Africa. Vol 3, Part 1. London, UK: Crown Agents, 22-50.
Burkill IH, 1935. A Dictionary of the Economic Products of the Malay Peninsula, Volumes 1 and 2. London, UK: Governments of the Straits Settlements and Federal Malay States, Crown Agents for the Colonies.
Dangol DR, 2001. Phytosociology of weeds of cotton in Kumber Farm, Bardiya, Western Nepal. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 33(3/4):160-163; 5 ref.
Everaarts AP, 1981. Weeds of Vegetables in the Highlands of Java. Pasarminggu, Jakarta, Indonesia: Horticultural Research Institute.
Galinato MI, Moody K, Piggin CM, 1999. Upland rice weeds of South and Southeast Asia. Upland rice weeds of South and Southeast Asia., v + 156 pp.; 15 pp. of ref.
Harper JL, 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London, UK: Academic Press.
Holm LR, Plucknett DL, Panco JV, Herberger JP, 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, USA: University Press of Hawaii.
King LJ, 1966. Weeds of the World. Biology and Control. New York, USA: Interscience Publ.
Masayu I, 1995. Weed communities in arable peat in MARDI Research Station, Pontian, Johore. BSc Thesis. Kuala Lumpar, Malasia: University of Malaya.
Moody K, 1989. Weeds reported in rice in South and Southeast Asia. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI, 442.
Nakamura I, 2015. Murdannia nudiflora (Commelinaceae), a new naturalized species to Japan. Journal of Japanese Botany, 90(3):215-217.
Nilendu Dhar, Goswami MM, Devashish Kar, 2004. Aquatic macrophytes in Baskandi Lake, an oxbow lake of Barak Basin, Assam. Environment and Ecology, 22(Spl-4):606-608.
Noltie HJ, 1994. Flora of Bhutan, Volume 3, Part 1. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden.
Pancho JV, Obien SR, 1995. Manual of Ricefield Weeds in the Philippines. Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines: Philippine Rice Research Institute.
Pandey SK, Shukla RP, 2001. The regeneration pattern and population structure of Boehavia diffusa L. in relation to disturbance in grasslands of north-eastern Uttar Pradesh. Tropical Ecology, 42(1):137-140.
Plaza GAT, Forero JE, 1998. Some aspects of the biology and management of Digitaria sanguinalis (L). Scop. in rice crop and other weeds. Agronomia Colombiana, 15(2/3):120-128.
Rojas LA, Mora A, Rodríguez H, 2002. Effect of minimum and conventional tillage in rice (Oryza sativa L.) in the Northern Huetar Region in Costa Rica. (Efecto de la labranza mínima y la convencional en arroz (Oryza sativa L.) en la Región Huetar Norte de Costa Rica.) Agronomía Mesoamericana, 13(2):111-116.
Satpathi CR, 1999. Weeds as hosts of Bihar hairy caterpillar (Diacrisia obliqua Wlk.). Insect Environment, 5(3):122.
Sideris C, 1931. Pathological and histological studies on pythiaceous rots of various agricultural plants. Phytopathologische Zeitchrift, 3:137-161.
Soerdarsan A, Mubijanto BO, Suhendar E, Santika H, 1974. Screening of herbicides in productive tea, assessed from viewpoint of weed situation. Menara Perkebunan, 42(2-3):121-140.
Soerjani M, Kostermans AJGH, Tjitrosoepomo G, 1987. Weeds of Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Balai Pustaka, 716 pp.
USDA-ARS, 2003. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.
Valdez R, 1968. Survey, identification and host-parasite relationships of root-knot nematodes occurring in some parts of the Phillippines. Phillippine Agriculturist, 51:802-824.
Waterhouse DF, 1993. The Major Arthropod Pests and Weeds of Agriculture in Southeast Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 21. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 141 pp.
Wilson AK, 1981. Commelinaceae - a review of the distribution, biology and control of the important weeds belonging to this family. Tropical Pest Management, 27(3):405-418
Distribution Maps
Top of page
- = Present, no further details
- = Evidence of pathogen
- = Widespread
- = Last reported
- = Localised
- = Presence unconfirmed
- = Confined and subject to quarantine
- = See regional map for distribution within the country
- = Occasional or few reports