Cookies on Invasive Species Compendium

Like most websites we use cookies. This is to ensure that we give you the best experience possible.

Continuing to use www.cabi.org means you agree to our use of cookies. If you would like to, you can learn more about the cookies we use.

Datasheet

Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 21 October 2015
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Pueraria montana var. lobata
  • Preferred Common Name
  • kudzu
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Dicotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • P. montana, formerly known as P. lobata, is widely known in the USA as ‘kudzu’ is native to East Asia. However, it does not appear to be a significant problem anywhere except in south-eastern USA where it was extensively planted in the 1930s and 1...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Kudzu covering trees and roadside. Near Horn Lake, Mississippi, USA.
TitleRoadside infestation
CaptionKudzu covering trees and roadside. Near Horn Lake, Mississippi, USA.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Kudzu covering trees and roadside. Near Horn Lake, Mississippi, USA.
Roadside infestationKudzu covering trees and roadside. Near Horn Lake, Mississippi, USA.Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Kudzu in flower. Wenfu Town, China.
TitleFlowering plant
CaptionKudzu in flower. Wenfu Town, China.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Kudzu in flower. Wenfu Town, China.
Flowering plantKudzu in flower. Wenfu Town, China.Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Mature kudzu flowers with developing seed pods.
TitleMature flowers
CaptionMature kudzu flowers with developing seed pods.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Mature kudzu flowers with developing seed pods.
Mature flowers Mature kudzu flowers with developing seed pods. Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Young kudzu tuber. Anhui Province, China.
TitleYoung tuber
CaptionYoung kudzu tuber. Anhui Province, China.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Young kudzu tuber. Anhui Province, China.
Young tuberYoung kudzu tuber. Anhui Province, China.Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Bee, Megachile sculpturalis, pollinating kudzu. Bai Shaling, China.
TitlePollinator
CaptionBee, Megachile sculpturalis, pollinating kudzu. Bai Shaling, China.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Bee, Megachile sculpturalis, pollinating kudzu. Bai Shaling, China.
PollinatorBee, Megachile sculpturalis, pollinating kudzu. Bai Shaling, China.Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Gregarious sawfly larvae on the underside of a kudzu leaf. Jiuhua Mountains, China.
TitleNatural enemy
CaptionGregarious sawfly larvae on the underside of a kudzu leaf. Jiuhua Mountains, China.
CopyrightNathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service
Gregarious sawfly larvae on the underside of a kudzu leaf. Jiuhua Mountains, China.
Natural enemyGregarious sawfly larvae on the underside of a kudzu leaf. Jiuhua Mountains, China.Nathan Schiff/U.S.D.A Forest Service

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Pueraria montana var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & Almeida S.M. Almeida ex Sanjappa & Predeep

Preferred Common Name

  • kudzu

Other Scientific Names

  • Dioclea odorata Montrouzier 1860
  • Dolichos hirsutus Thunb. 1794
  • Dolichos japonica hort. nom. nud., Bailey 1924
  • Dolichos lobatus Willd. 1802
  • Dolichos trilobus Houtt 1779
  • Neustanthus chinensis Benth. 1861
  • Pachyrhizus thunbergianus Siebold & Zuccarini 1846
  • Phaseolus trilobus (L.) 1789
  • Pueraria argyi Lévl and Vaniot 1908
  • Pueraria bodinieri Lévl and Vaniot 1908
  • Pueraria caerulea Lévl and Vaniot 1908
  • Pueraria harmsi Rech. 1910
  • Pueraria hirsuta (Thunb.) Matsumura non Kurz 1902
  • Pueraria koten Lévl and Vaniot 1908
  • Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi 1965
  • Pueraria lobata var. lobata Ohwi
  • Pueraria neo-caledonica Harms 1906
  • Pueraria novo-guineensis Warburg 1891
  • Pueraria pseudo-hirsuta Tang & Wang nom. nud., Hu & Hsun 1955
  • Pueraria thunbergiana (Sieb. & Zucc.) Benth. 1867
  • Pueraria triloba Makino ex Backer 1963
  • Pueraria triloba (Lour.) Backer in Heyne 1927
  • Pueraria triloba (Houtt.) Makino in Iinuma 1912
  • Pueraria volkensii Hosokawa 1938

International Common Names

  • Spanish: kudzo ordinario; kudzu; kudzu comun
  • French: koudsou; koudzou; kudzu; kudzu du Japon; vigne japonaise

Local Common Names

  • China: fen ge teng; gue; ko; ko t'eng; koten
  • Fiji: aka; wa-yake; yaka
  • Germany: Kopoubohne
  • Indonesia: bitok; ngu lok; tebi; tobi
  • Italy: pueraria
  • Japan: daisumame; fusi maki kadsura; in ken maki; katsi maki; kudzu; kuzu; saitzu mame
  • Korea, DPR: cheulk; chik; chuk
  • New Caledonia: magnana rkerku; quechoc
  • Papua New Guinea: goruma; gosima; hgedafo; kagomba; kenangia; kohena; ko'pitu; korono; mapumb; mudja; muntamagana; nggaoka; nggondumu; ngko'ahi; ngko-ko; oka mapumb; oka moi; op; owitu; sifu; so'onea; wowitu
  • Philippines: baai; tahaunon
  • Solomon Islands: lebu
  • Thailand: tum yaa krua
  • Tonga: aka; fue alpuaka; fue'ae puaka
  • USA: Japanese arrowroot; ko-hemp; kudzu bean; kudzu vine; Mason-Dixon vine; Thunberg kudzu vine
  • Vietnam: cu nang; cu san day

EPPO code

  • DOLTR (Dolichos trilobus)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

P. montana, formerly known as P. lobata, is widely known in the USA as ‘kudzu’ is native to East Asia. However, it does not appear to be a significant problem anywhere except in south-eastern USA where it was extensively planted in the 1930s and 1940s for erosion control. Seed dispersal appears to be minor but vegetative growth in subtropical areas can be substantial, up to 18 m per growing season. It is a climbing vine and kills vegetation by completely smothering it, and it will also entirely cover telegraph poles and buildings if left to itself. Once introduced it is difficult to control, especially in forest and marginal habitats. There are three varieties, although only var. lobata is so far known to be invasive, in the USA.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Dicotyledonae
  •                     Order: Fabales
  •                         Family: Fabaceae
  •                             Subfamily: Faboideae
  •                                 Genus: Pueraria
  •                                     Species: Pueraria montana var. lobata

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

The genus Pueraria has been revised twice, first with nine species by Bentham (1867) and later with 17 species by van der Maesen (1985). The widely dispersed species commonly known as ‘kudzu’ corresponds to van der Maesen's Pueraria lobata. It is a very variable species that has been described many times resulting in extensive synonymy and many common names. Van der Maesen found it convenient to separate three varieties largely on the basis of size; P. lobata (Willd.) Ohwi var. lobata Ohwi, P. lobata (Willd.) Ohwi var. montana (Lour.) Maesen, and P. lobata var. thomsonii (Benth.) Maesen later revised to P. lobata var. chinensis (Ohwi) Maesen & Almeida. All three varieties are quite widespread in their native South-East Asia but van der Maesen (1985) suggests that var. lobata was the only variety to be widely exported outside its natural range. Although Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi has been the commonly used Latin name for several decades, in the early 1990s the name Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. started to appear occasionally. There was some confusion until Ward (1998) wrote a clarifying note in which he explained that van der Maesen inexplicably chose the epithet lobata (1802) for kudzu even though montana (1790) had priority. Thus the correct scientific name for kudzu is Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & Almeida (1988). Many vernacular names are also given by van der Maesen (1985). This datasheet thus covers the entire species, but much of the information on it as an invasive in USA deal in large part only with the variety lobata.

Description

Top of page

Kudzu is a perennial climbing vine that produces very large tubers up to 2 m long and 18-45 cm wide that can weigh as much as 180 kg on old plants. Stems or branches are strong, approximately 0.6-2.5 cm in diameter and up to 30 m in length. They can grow up to 25 cm per day or 18 m per growing season, and produce root crowns where nodes contact soil. Leaves are pinnately trifoliate, 8-20 cm long and 5-19 cm wide with leaflets ovate to orbicular and unlobed to trilobed. Leaves are pale green above and light to greyish green below. Purple to blue flowers, that smell of grapes, are borne on a mostly unbranched inflorescence 10-25 cm long. Seeds are borne in golden-haired, brown, flattened, oblong pods, 4-13 cm long and 0.6-1.3 cm wide. The seeds, visible through the pod, are flattened, ovoid and reddish brown with a black mosaic pattern. They are approximately 4-5 mm long by 4 mm wide and 2 mm thick (van der Maesen, 1985). For a more detailed description and a key to the three varieties, see van der Maesen (1985).

Plant Type

Top of pageBroadleaved
Herbaceous
Perennial
Seed propagated
Vegetatively propagated
Vine / climber

Distribution

Top of page

There appears to be some confusing surround the exact limits of the native range. The three varieties of Pueraria montana have overlapping but not identical distributions. Var. lobata is the most widespread, presumed to be native to China, Japan and other parts of South-East Asia, it has spread or been introduced to many tropical regions including Oceania, Central Europe, Central and South America and the continental USA where it is an aggressive and noxious weed. Var. montana and var. thomsonii have more limited ranges in China, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam; with var. montana also in Japan (the Ryukyu Archipelago) and var. thomsonii in India, Bhutan and Hawaii (introduced). Kudzu is probably much more widespread in South and Central America but, as it is not considered a pest there, records are not widely reported. The distribution list refers to records of all the varieties and accepts a wider native range than noted by any single source, for example, accepting ILDIS (2007) noting a native range as far south as Queensland, Australia and as far west as Tonga and the Solomon Islands, apparently based on van der Maesen (1985).

Distribution Table

Top of page

The 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.

CountryDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferencesNotes

ASIA

BhutanPresentNativeILDIS, 2007
ChinaPresentEPPO, 2014
-AnhuiPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-FujianPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
-GuangdongPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-GuangxiPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-GuizhouPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HainanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HebeiPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HeilongjiangPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HenanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-Hong KongPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
-HubeiPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HunanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-JiangsuPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-JilinPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-LiaoningPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-ShandongPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-ShanxiPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-SichuanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-YunnanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-ZhejiangPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
IndiaPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-Arunachal PradeshPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-DelhiPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-GujaratPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-KarnatakaPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-MaharashtraPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-ManipurPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-MeghalayaPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-NagalandPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-SikkimPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
-West BengalPresentIntroducedILDIS, 2007
IndonesiaPresentEPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007
-Irian JayaPresentNot invasiveVerdcourt, 1979
-JavaPresentNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
JapanPresentEPPO, 2014
-HokkaidoPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-HonshuPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-KyushuPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-Ryukyu ArchipelagoPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
Korea, DPRPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
Korea, Republic ofPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
LaosPresentNativeILDIS, 2007
MalaysiaPresentEPPO, 2014
-Peninsular MalaysiaPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
-SarawakPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
PakistanPresentNativeNot invasiveAli, 1977; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
PhilippinesPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
TaiwanPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
ThailandPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
VietnamPresentNativeNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014

AFRICA

Sierra LeonePresentIntroducedNot invasiveHepper, 1958; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014

NORTH AMERICA

BermudaPresentIntroducedSchotman, 1989; EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014
MexicoPresentIntroducedInvasivePIER, 2007
USARestricted distributionEPPO, 2014
-AlabamaWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
-ArkansasWidespreadIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-ConnecticutPresentIntroducedNot invasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002
-DelawarePresentIntroducedNot invasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-District of ColumbiaPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2012
-FloridaWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-GeorgiaWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
-HawaiiPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2012
-IllinoisPresentIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-IndianaPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2012; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-KansasPresentIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-KentuckyPresentIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2012
-LouisianaWidespreadIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-MarylandPresentIntroducedNot invasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
-MassachusettsPresentIntroducedNot invasiveSorrie & Perkins, 1988
-MississippiWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
-MissouriPresentIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-NebraskaAbsent, formerly presentIntroducedNot invasiveMcKee & Stephens, 1943
-New JerseyPresentIntroducedNot invasiveSnyder, 1987
-New YorkPresentIntroducedNot invasiveFrankel, 1989
-North CarolinaPresentIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-OhioPresentIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-ARS, 2007
-OklahomaPresentIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-OregonPresentIntroducedNot invasiveColquhoun, 2000
-PennsylvaniaPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-South CarolinaPresentIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-TennesseeWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-TexasWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-VirginiaWidespreadIntroducedInvasivevan der Maesen, 1985
-WashingtonPresentIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2012
-West VirginiaPresentIntroducedInvasiveUSDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007

CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

Dominican RepublicPresentIntroducedNot invasiveLiogier, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
JamaicaPresentIntroducedNot invasiveHoward & Proctor, 1957; EPPO, 2014
PanamaPresentIntroducedNot invasiveD'Arcy, 1987; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014

SOUTH AMERICA

BrazilPresentIntroducedNot invasiveMorel, 2003; EPPO, 2014
ParaguayPresentIntroducedNot invasiveMorel, 2003; EPPO, 2014

EUROPE

ItalyPresent, few occurrencesEPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007
Russian Federation
-Russian Far EastPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2007
SwitzerlandPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedNot invasiveEPPO, 2007; Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation, 2003; EPPO, 2014

OCEANIA

American SamoaPresentEPPO, 2014
AustraliaPresentEPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007
-Australian Northern TerritoryPresentIntroducedRoyal Botanic Gardens Sydney, 2007
-New South WalesPresentIntroducedNot invasiveHnatiuk, 1990
-QueenslandPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007
-VictoriaPresentRoyal Botanic Gardens Sydney, 2007
FijiPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
French PolynesiaPresentIntroducedInvasivePIER, 2007
Micronesia, Federated states ofPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007; EPPO, 2014
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
New ZealandPresentEPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007
NiuePresentIntroducedNot invasiveSykes, 1970; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
Norfolk IslandPresentIntroducedInvasivePIER, 2007
PalauPresentNativePIER, 2007
Papua New GuineaPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
SamoaPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007
Solomon IslandsPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014
TongaPresentIntroducedNot invasivevan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
VanuatuPresentIntroducedvan der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
Wallis and Futuna IslandsPIER, 2007

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

Van der Maesen (1985) suggests that kudzu was introduced to Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia and surrounding areas from the Orient in ancient times and that it was an important food source before yams, taro and sweet potatoes became dominant. However, in the distribution list, a broader native range of P. montana, based on ILDIS (2007), is accepted in this datasheet. Introduction of kudzu to the USA is much more recent, and can be traced to the Japanese Pavilion of the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition of 1876 where it was distributed as an ornamental vine, and then again at the New Orleans Exposition in 1883 (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977). In the early 1900s, kudzu began to be used as a fodder crop. It was promoted and distributed by Mr CE Pleas, a Florida farmer, who noticed that it was both easy to grow and that many farm animals would eat it (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977). Due to its incredible growth rate (up to 18 m per growing season) and the ability to produce new roots where nodes come into contact with the ground, it was selected for erosion control in the 1930s and 1940s. It was actively promoted and planted throughout south-eastern USA by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service and the Civilian Conservation Corps (Tabor and Susott, 1941; Stevens, 1976). During this period the Soil Erosion Service paid farmers up to US $8 per acre ($20 per hectare) to plant more than 1.2 million acres (3 million hectares) of kudzu to stabilize southern soils (Miller and Edwards, 1983; Britton et al., 2002). Unchecked by natural enemies, it was developing into a weedy pest by the 1950s. Unsuccessful attempts to eliminate it from land to be used for grazing prompted its removal in 1953 from the list of permissible cover plants under the Agricultural Conservation Program (Miller and Edwards, 1983). Eventually, the US Congress listed it as a Federal Noxious Weed in 1998 (Britton et al., 2002).

Currently, kudzu is a serious pest in south-eastern USA, extending as far north as New York, New Jersey, New England, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois, and as far west as Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska (McKee and Stephens, 1943; Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977; Snyder, 1987; Sorrie and Perkins, 1988; Frankel, 1989; Mitich, 2000). In Florida it has begun to invade the everglades (Virginia Native Plant Society, 1999) and small outbreaks have been reported in Oregon (Colquhoun, 2000).

Risk of Introduction

Top of pageKudzu is widely established in eastern USA. It could be dispersed as seeds in soil or as an ornamental plant through mail order. A few small infestations have been eradicated in Oregon (Colquhoun, 2000) and kudzu is a quarantine-restricted plant for that state (USDA-NRCS, 2002).

Habitat

Top of page

Kudzu is an opportunistic climbing vine that grows in numerous habitats including woods, plantation forests, along rivers and roads, on the borders of fields, in abandoned fields, on embankments and along fencerows. It is often seen draped over trees that it has killed, on telephone poles and wires, and on abandoned vehicles and buildings (USDA, 1976). Although kudzu grows well on many soil types including nutrient-poor, sandy and high clay soils, it is most suited to well-drained loamy soils. It does not favour very wet soils, perhaps explaining its absence from the Mississippi Delta, USA, nor soils with high pH (Mitich, 2000). In the USA, kudzu has a wide geographic and climatic range but grows best in areas with at least 1000 mm annual rainfall, mild winters (5-15°C) and hot summers (above 25°C). In China, kudzu is found on road embankments and in mountainous regions where cultivation of crops was not possible.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
BuildingsPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Cultivated / agricultural landPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areasPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areasPresent, no further detailsNatural
Managed forests, plantations and orchardsPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Managed grasslands (grazing systems)Present, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Rail / roadsidesPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areasPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial-natural/semi-natural
Natural forestsPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
Natural forestsPresent, no further detailsNatural
Natural grasslandsPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
RiverbanksPresent, no further detailsHarmful (pest or invasive)
RiverbanksPresent, no further detailsNatural

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

Kudzu kills plants by smothering, growing over them and blocking out all available light thus preventing photosynthesis. Kudzu kills all plants that it overgrows and is a significant pest in southern USA pine plantations.

Host Plants/Plants Affected

Top of page
Plant nameFamilyContext
Pinus sp. (pine)PinaceaeMain

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

Heider et al. (2007) found a high level of genetic variation between provenances of P. montana var. lobata in molecular RAPDs studies. An alloenzyme-based population genetics study of US populations showed unexpectedly high heterozygosity. This suggests that populations are the result of multiple introductions and that sexual reproduction probably occurs within populations (Pappert et al., 2000). Some populations with relatively few genotypes displayed an excess of heterozygotes suggesting selection for heterozygosity. A subsequent study showed that highly heterozygous individuals accumulated more biomass and leaf area than less heterozygous individuals (Pappert, 1998).

Physiology and Phenology

The dominant feature of kudzu is its ability to climb over other vegetation including trees. This allows it to maximize light capture for itself while shading its competitors. Kudzu's phenomenal growth is achieved by allocating more biomass to photosynthetic rather than structural tissues (Wechsler, 1974), and using diurnal leaf movements to modulate leaf temperatures, optimizing photosynthesis and reducing water loss (Forseth and Teramura, 1986; 1987). Although kudzu can be found underneath the canopy, it prefers open areas or edges where its photosynthetic rate is highest. Kudzu's climbing mechanism, twining, is adaptive for high light saturation conditions (Carter and Teramura, 1988a,b). When grown under increasing levels of carbon dioxide, kudzu produces more leaf biomass, has longer stems, more branches and the leaves expand sooner, suggesting that it will become even more dominant with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (Sasek and Strain, 1988,1989).

Reproductive Biology

Most of the spread of kudzu in the USA is due to vegetative growth because seed production is poor. In fact, when kudzu was being planted for erosion control in 1935 it was necessary to import seed (160 kg) from Japan to satisfy the demand for seedlings (Tabor and Susott, 1941). Seed production is poor because flowers are limited to the vertically growing kudzu stems. When pods are formed, the seeds are often killed by native Hemiptera and, less commonly, by a naturalized Asian bruchid seed weevil, Borowiecius ademptus (Thornton, 2001).

In the USA, pollination appears to be adequate by native and naturalized Hymenoptera (Thornton, 2001). In Japan and China, a megachilid bee (Megachile sculpturalis) has been observed pollinating kudzu (Batra, 1998), which is now naturalized in the USA (Mangum and Brooks, 1997). In the 1930s, when seedlings were unavailable, farmers sold seed crowns, that formed wherever kudzu stem nodes contacted the soil, for US $5-7 per thousand (approximately $220 per hectare) (Tabor and Susott, 1941). Takahashi and Kikuchi (1986) noticed that kudzu was one of several species that repopulated Nanakita Hill (Honshu, Japan) after a forest fire. They showed that kudzu seeds germinated at a significantly higher rate than controls if they were soaked in hot water (90°C or 70°C) for 30 seconds.

Associations

Like many legumes, kudzu has a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen fixing bacteria. Erdman (1967) estimated that kudzu fixed 88 kg of nitrogen per hectare, a little less than half that fixed by lucerne (186 kg) and about twice the amount fixed by soyabeans (51 kg), groundnuts (42 kg) or Phaseolus vulgaris beans (40 kg). Nitrogen-fixing bacteria are functionally divided into seven groups. Kudzu is in the cowpea group with groundnuts, velvetbeans (Mucuna pruriens), lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus) and others (Erdman, 1967). Isolates from kudzu root nodules grown on YMA (Yeast Mannitol Agar), do not absorb Congo red and are Gram negative, all attributes consistent with Rhizobium spp. (AD Searle, Wake Forest University, North Carolina, USA, personal communication, 2002).

 

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climatePreferredAverage temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all yearPreferredWarm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summerPreferredWarm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers
Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winterPreferredWarm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)

Rainfall

Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Mean annual rainfall00mm; lower/upper limits

Soil Tolerances

Top of page

Soil drainage

  • free

Soil reaction

  • acid
  • neutral

Soil texture

  • heavy
  • light
  • medium

Natural Enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Myrothecium verrucariaPathogenUSA (Louisiana)
Pseudomonas savastanoi pv. phaseolicolaPathogenAlabama

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Approximately 25 species of insect have been observed feeding on kudzu (Pemberton, 1988; Britton et al., 2002; and unpublished data from J DeLoach, ARS Grassland, Soil and Water Laboratory, Temple, Texas, USA; G Markin, USDA Forest Service, Bozeman Forestry Sciences, Montana, USA; NM Schiff, USDA Forest Service, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA). Of these, seven species are not specific to kudzu (Deporaus sp., Alcidodes trifidus, Sagra femorata, Aristobia hispida, Paraleprodera diopthalma, Anomala corpulenta andEpicauta chinensis); the others are still under investigation and include sawflies, leaf beetles, weevils, longhorned beetles (Cerambycidae), scarab beetles (Scarabeidae) and flat headed borers (Buprestidae) (Britton et al., 2002). There are several reports of arthropods that can live on kudzu but are not considered potential control agents, including the soyabean looper Pseudoplusia includens [Chrysodeixis includens] (Kidd and Orr, 2001), the silver-spotted skipper Epargyreus clarus in the USA (Lind et al., 2001) and the velvetbean caterpillar Anticarsia gemmatalis (Fescemyer and Erlandson, 2003). In Japan, at least three Hemiptera, a parasitoid wasp and two mites develop on or are associated with kudzu (Takasu and Hirose, 1986;Tayutivutikul and Yano, 1989,1990; Shimoda et al., 1997).

In the USA, seeds are eaten by native Hemiptera and a naturalized Asian bruchid seed weevil, Borowiecius ademptus (Thornton, 2001).

Six fungal pathogens have been isolated from kudzu in Anhui Province, China, and may have potential for use as biological control agents for kudzu in the USA (Jiang et al., 2000). A common disease called 'imitation rust' is caused by the fungus Synchytrium puerariae. This pathogen can infect all plant tissues including leaves, stems, flowers and seedpods. Other pathogens included Pseudocercospora puerariicola, the cause of angular leafspot, Cercospora puerario-thomsona, the cause of brown spot, and Phomopsis sp., Colletotrichum lindemuthianum and Colletotrichum sp., causal agents of anthracnose. Virus disease such as leaf mottling and mosaic disease were also found in some parts of China (Jiang et al., 2000).

Soyabean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) is common on kudzu in areas close to soyabean fields in Brazil and Paraguay (Poolpol and Pupipat, 1985; Morel, 2003). A Phytophthora species was isolated from infected root and foliar parts of kudzu in the Korea Republic (YW Lee, Department of Agricultural Biology and Research Center for New Biomaterials in Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Suwon, Korea Republic, personal communication, 2003).

 

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Dispersal of kudzu is primarily by man. Kudzu was introduced to the USA as an ornamental, then encouraged for livestock fodder, and finally actively planted for erosion control throughout the south-east. It is possible that it can be dispersed as seeds either via animals or by moving contaminated soil but these effects would be swamped by the earlier human aided dispersal. Kudzu has also been introduced to Central and South America but it was not as widely planted as in the USA and has not attained pest status.

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Animal productionAs a fodder cropYesYesShurtleff & Aoyagi, 1977
Erosion control/ dune stabilizationYesYesStevens, 1976
Landscape improvement/ landscaping industryYesYesShurtleff & Aoyagi, 1977
Ornamental purposesYesYesShurtleff & Aoyagi, 1977

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Mail/postYes
Soil, sand, gravel etc.Yes

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Bulbs, Tubers, Corms, RhizomesNo

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Crop productionNegative
Cultural/amenityNegative
Economic/livelihoodNegative
Environment (generally)Positive and negative
Forestry productionNegative
Livestock productionPositive
Native floraNegative

Economic Impact

Top of page

It is difficult to measure the economic impact of kudzu because of its non-direct effect of taking land out of production. Recent estimates of the kudzu infestation in south-eastern USA range from 809,000 to 3.2 million hectares (Everest et al., 1991; Corley et al., 1997). At 2002 prices a 25-year-old pine plantation in the southern USA is worth approximately US $1430 per hectare, and whereas costs of eliminating kudzu vary, they are not cost effective in forestry plantations (Britton et al., 2002).

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Kudzu is typically a pest of disturbed habitats but when it does encroach on natural areas it kills trees and plants by growing over them. Kudzu is associated with nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Erdman, 1967) and improves the soil (Robertson, 1997) but once land is infested with kudzu nothing else can grow there without costly kudzu removal (Britton et al., 2002). Sharkey and Loreto (1993) studied isoprene emission in kudzu because the large acreage made it a source comparable to tree species. Isoprene contributes to the blue haze over some forests (Went, 1960) and its breakdown in the presence of nitrous oxide leads to ozone formation (Trainer et al., 1987). Sharkey and Loreto (1993) found that kudzu isoprene emission was more variable than that of oak or aspen and suggested it might complicate construction of isoprene emission inventories. They speculated that isoprene emission was adaptive for kudzu, even though it led to ozone formation, because it might help plants cope with stressful conditions.

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of pageThere is very little information on specific impacts of kudzu on biodiversity. There is obvious potential for damage because few plants can survive once smothered by kudzu and small ecosystems could be radically altered, however, most kudzu was planted in habitats that were already disturbed or eroded. Kudzu does invade National Parks but a feasibility study for its eradication and restoration of the habitat with native tree species for two parks in Tennessee, USA, did not mention impacts on biodiversity (Rosen, 1982).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page

Impact mechanisms

  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition - shading
  • Competition - smothering
  • Competition - strangling
  • Rapid growth

Impact outcomes

  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Infrastructure damage
  • Modification of fire regime
  • Modification of hydrology
  • Modification of nutrient regime
  • Modification of successional patterns
  • Monoculture formation
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts forestry
  • Negatively impacts livelihoods
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species

Invasiveness

  • Fast growing
  • Has a broad native range
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Long lived
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Reproduces asexually
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc

Likelihood of entry/control

  • Difficult/costly to control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately

Uses

Top of page

In its native range in China and Japan, it is prized for its starch as a human food from the tubers and, as recently as 1977, Japanese production was approximately 338 tonnes annually (van der Maesen, 1985). However, the roots are laborious to collect and extract and a small starch factory in Anhui Province, China, failed in 1997 after only a few years' production although it is common in family gardens in many parts of China. Kudzu leaves, shoots and flowers can also be steamed or pickled and eaten as a vegetable (van der Maesen, 1985). Various parts of the plant are used as medicines and for the treatment of alcohol hangovers in China and Japan (Miller and Edwards, 1983; van der Maesen, 1985), and the tubers (or ‘radix’) are a common ingredient in Chinese herbal remedies.

As an exotic, kudzu was first introduced to the USA in 1876 as an ornamental plant for gardens (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977). Later, kudzu was promoted as nutritious forage for livestock (Sturkie and Grimes, 1939; Dalal and Patnaik, 1963; Corley et al., 1997) but the yield is only 4-6 tonnes per hectare per year and it is difficult to cut and bale (Everest et al., 1991). In the 1930s and 1940s kudzu was actively planted as erosion control until it was recognized as a weed in the 1950s (Britton et al., 2002). However, when removed, soil nitrogen is higher than in uninvaded areas showing its ability as a green manure.

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Fodder/animal feed
  • Forage

Environmental

  • Amenity
  • Erosion control or dune stabilization
  • Revegetation
  • Soil conservation
  • Soil improvement

Fuels

  • Fuelwood

Human food and beverage

  • Flour/starch
  • Vegetable

Materials

  • Green manure
  • Wood/timber

Medicinal, pharmaceutical

  • Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
  • Traditional/folklore

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Kudzu is widely established in eastern USA. It can be dispersed as seeds in soil or as an ornamental plant through mail order. A few small infestations have been eradicated in Oregon (Colquhoun, 2000) and kudzu is a quarantine-restricted plant for that state (USDA-NRCS, 2007). It has recently been recommended for phytosanitary measures in Europe as an A2 pest (EPPO, 2007), as small infestations have been noted from garden escapes in Switzerland. Also, there are concerns about potential future invasion in countries where it has been introduced but has not yet naturalised.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

Kudzu is quite distinctive in the field in the USA. To separate kudzu from other species of Pueraria see van der Maesen (1985).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Control

The combination of extremely fast growth, ability to grow over other plants, root formation where nodes contact the ground, large storage tubers and few natural enemies in the USA makes kudzu a challenge to control. Treatment coverage is probably the most difficult problem. Due to the extreme growth rate, every root crown in the area must be killed or repopulation will occur (Miller and Edwards, 1983). Various cultural and chemical control methods have been attempted and, with intensive effort, it is possible to protect a limited area, however, the vast reservoir of kudzu on the edges of forests and marginal lands, where access is limited, makes it unlikely that kudzu will be permanently controlled by any means other than classical biological control.

Cultural control

Persistent application of cultural methods can be effective in certain situations. Monthly close mowing for two growing seasons effectively starving the roots, can be successful in flat open areas (Ball et al., 1979). Equally, heavy grazing by cows, pigs, horses or goats (Rhoden et al., 1991) can remove kudzu but there are associated problems: animals cannot eat vines growing over trees or in steep areas; they must be penned on the kudzu; watering holes must be provided; and there must be enough livestock to ensure 80% of the kudzu is continuously consumed (Ball et al., 1979; Miller and Edwards, 1983). Although kudzu is nutritious for livestock (Sturkie and Grimes, 1939; Dalal and Patnaik 1963; Corley et al., 1997), cattle do not favour it when it is trampled and horses need to become adapted to it (Hintz, 1993).

Combinations of cultural methods can be effective. The St Regis Paper Co. converted land in Stewart County, Georgia, USA which was partially overrun with kudzu, to a pine plantation in 1967 by burning the kudzu after it was killed by autumn frost, removing merchantable timber and knocking down unmarketable trees so kudzu couldn't grow over them, and then running cattle for 2 years until no kudzu remained on the flat areas. The kudzu that was growing in gullies where the cows could not reach it was chemically treated and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) seedlings were planted in pasture areas. Yield from areas formerly covered by kudzu exceeded yield from adjacent areas that had no kudzu and soil samples from both areas showed that the kudzu soil was richer in organic matter and had higher levels of all elements tested except phosphorus (Robertson, 1997).
 

Mechanical control

Frequent close cutting will eventually exhaust the plants stored reserves leading to plant death (PIER, 2007).


Chemical control

Effective chemical control of kudzu is possible but it may require repeated application of herbicides over a period of 4-10 years (Nelson, 1997). Many herbicides have been tested against kudzu (Davis and Funderburk, 1964; Martin and Miller, 1981; Michael, 1982;Miller, 1982,1985,1986,1988; Miller and Edwards, 1983; Miller and True, 1986;Smith, 1988,1990; Kay and Hoyle, 1997). Selection of an appropriate treatment depends on several factors including age and vigour of the kudzu, roughness of the terrain, proximity to streams or ponds and the value of other crops or trees present on the site. As with cultural control, kudzu will return if even a single root crown is left untreated, though several procedures can improve the effectiveness of herbicide treatment. Prescribed burning early in the spring will kill small kudzu plants and sever stems draped over trees. It will also reveal application hazards, which can then be marked, and expose root crowns. The size of root crowns indicates the age of the kudzu patch. Typically, patches more than 10 years old require twice as much herbicide as younger patches (Miller, 1991). If possible, trees should be logged prior to treatment and draping stems should be severed. The recommended application technique includes outlining the area to be treated followed by back and forth overlapping swaths and then cross-wise spray swaths perpendicular to the initial swaths, and near streams, application should follow the stream shape using double overlapping swaths (Miller, 1991).

Biological control

Biological control is an important element of an integrated kudzu management system, and many pathogens have been isolated from kudzu and include microorganisms native and non-native to the USA. Those native to the USA include Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola [P. savastanoi pv. phaseolicola] which causes halo blight of legume plants such as beans and kudzu. The symptoms are described as small necrotic leaf spots surrounded by bright halos of chlorotic tissue. This pathogen was tested for its potential as a biological control agent of kudzu by Zidak and Backman (1996). They found it was capable of causing mortality on both young and old kudzu seedlings, however, secondary infections under dry conditions in the field were very limited.

Boyette et al. (2001,2002) tested the effectiveness of another US native fungus, Myrothecium verrucaria, as a biological control agent for kudzu. This fungus was isolated in 1997 from infected Senna obtusifolia, and showed dramatic potential for biological control of various weed species when formulated, even in the absence of environmental dew (Walker and Tilley, 1997). The USDA-ARS biological control team showed that M. verrucaria applied at a high spore rate of 2x108 conidia/ml caused greater than 90% mortality of both young and old kudzu seedlings. They also determined that the disease severity increased with an increase in temperature to 30-40°C, suggesting that this mycoherbicide could be very active in the summer in the southern USA. The virulence of M. verrucaria against kudzu was increased in formulation with an organosilicon surfactant to cause 100% mortality of kudzu in the greenhouse and in the field 2 weeks after spraying at a rate of 2x107. As fungal activity requires the surfactant, the risk of the fungus spreading beyond the sprayed field is minimal. Eight to ten toxic macrocyclic trichothecenes (Abbas et al., 2001,2002) were found in extracts of M. verrucaria, the specific number depending on the type of tissue used, growing conditions and type of growth medium (Abbas et al., 2001). In all cases at least two very potent toxins were produced, however, none of the mycotoxins were detected in target plant tissues (kudzu, Senna obtusifolia or soyabean) after spraying with M. verrucaria. The combination of surfactant-limited activity, high efficacy and lack of residual toxins add to the appeal of M. verrucaria as a potential biological central agent for kudzu. However, concerns about the toxicity of the macrocyclic trichothecenes to humans and livestock (Jarvis et al., 1985) and the high mammalian toxicity as noted by Abbas et al. (2002) indicate that extreme care should be exercised when handling mycelium, spores or any other type of formulation for field application. Further investigations may discover other strains and/or techniques for producing fungus inoculum free from potent toxins.

Some isolates of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides [Glomerella cingulata] are well established as biocontrol agents of various weeds including the mycoherbicide 'Collego' (Smith, 1986). A specific isolate of this fungus was obtained from kudzu in Houston County, Georgia, USA, and its virulence was increased by several selections for growth on a Czapek Dox medium amended with kudzu extract. This isolate showed dramatic effects on both leaves and vines and produced conidia in a pycnidium which could be used for secondary infection (Farris and Reilly, 2000). In the USA, several fungi, including Alternaria and Fusarium species, are being developed as potential biocontrol agents against a variety of weeds and have been tested against kudzu. In greenhouse and field experiments, kudzu seedling mortality has been achieved with preparations of A. helianthi, F. solani and F. polyphialidicum (Abbas et al., 1991; Abbas et al., 1995a,b,1996a,b; Abbas and Barrentine, 1995; Abbas and Boyette, 1996). Although an attempt was made to use the soyabean rust pathogen Phakopsora pachyrhizi for biological control of kudzu in the USA, there is a concern that it might affect soyabean crops (G Hartman, National Soybean Research Center, Urbana, Illinois, personal communication, 2003).

References

Top of page

Abbas HK, Barrentine WL, 1995. Alternaria helianthi and imazaquin for control of imazaquin susceptible and resistant cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotypes. Weed Science, 43(3):425-428

Abbas HK, Boyette CD, 1992. Phytotoxicity of fumonisin B on weed and crop species. Weed Technology, 6(3):548-552

Abbas HK, Boyette CD, 1996. Control of morningglory species using Fusarium solani and its extracts. International Journal of Pest Management, 42(4):235-239; 21 ref.

Abbas HK, Boyette CD, Hoagland RE, Vesonder RF, 1991. Bioherbicidal potential of Fusarium moniliforme and its phytotoxin, fumonisin. Weed Science, 39(4):673-677; 28 ref.

Abbas HK, Duke SO, Shier WT, Badria FA, Ocamb OC, Woodward RP, Xie W, Mirocha CJ, 1996. Comparison of ceramide synthase inhibitors with other phytotoxins produced by Fusarium species. Journal of Natural Toxins, 6:163-181.

Abbas HK, Egley GH, Paul RN, 1995. Effect of conidia production temperature on germination and infectivity of Alternaria helianthi. Phytopathology, 85(6):677-682

Abbas HK, Johnson BB, Shier WT, Tak H, Jarvis BB, Boyette CD, 2002. Phytotoxicity and mammalian cytotoxicity of macrocyclic trichothecene mycotoxins from Myrothecium verrucaria. Phytochemistry, 59(3):309-313; 34 ref.

Abbas HK, Johnson BJ, Egley GH, 1996. Biological control of common cocklebur by Alternaria helianthi. Proceedings of the second international weed control congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25-28 June 1996: Volumes 1-4., 1129-1134; 15 ref.

Abbas HK, Tak H, Boyette CD, Shier WT, Jarvis BB, 2001. Macrocyclic trichothecenes are undetectable in kudzu (Pueraria montana) plants treated with a high-producing isolate of Myrothecium verrucaria. Phytochemistry, 58(2):269-276; 41 ref.

Abbas HK, Tanaka T, Duke SO, 1995. Pathogenicity of Alternaria alternata and Fusarium moniliforme and phytotoxicity of AAL-toxin and fumonisin B1 on tomato cultivars. J. Phytopathology, 143:329-334.

Ali SI, 1977. Papilion. In: Flora of West Pakistan, No. 100. Karachi, Pakistan: University of Karachi.

Ball DM, Walker RH, Dickens R, 1979. Kudzu in Alabama - Uses and control. Forage Production Fact Sheet. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama Circ., ANR-65.

Batra SWT, 1998. Biology of the giant resin bee, Megachile sculpturalis Smith, a conspicuous new immigrant in Maryland. The Maryland Naturalist, 42:1-3.

Bentham G, 1867. Notes on Pueraria DC., correctly referred by the author to Phaseoleae. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. Bot. 9:121-125.

Boyette CD, Abbas HK, Walker HL, 2001. Control of kudzu with a fungal pathogen derived from Myrothecium verrucaria. U.S. patent No. 6,274,534 B1, Aug. 14, 2001:1-6.

Boyette CD, Walker HL, Abbas HK, 2002. Biological control of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) with an isolate of Myrothecium verrucaria. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 12(1):75-82; 22 ref.

Britton KO, Orr D, Sun J, 2002. Chapter 25, Kudzu. In: Van Driesche R, Blossey B, Hoddle M, Lyon S, Reardon R, eds. Biological control of invasive plants and weeds in the eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04, 413 pp.

Carter GA, Teramura AH, 1988. Nonsummer stomatal conductance for the invasive vines Kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle. Canadian Journal of Botany, 66(12):2392-2395

Carter GA, Teramura AH, 1988. Vine photosynthesis and relationships to climbing mechanics in a forest understory. American Journal of Botany, 75:1011-1018.

Colquhoun J, 2000. Another newcomer: Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) invades Oregon. Oregon State University Extension Service, Crop and Soil News/Notes 14:3.

Corley RN, Woldeghebriel A, Murphy MR, 1997. Evaluation of the nutritive value of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) as a feed for ruminants. American Feed Science Technology, 68:183-188.

Coulson JR, 2000. In: Coulson JR, Vail PV, Dix ME, Nordlund DA, Kauffman WC, eds. 100 years of biological control research and development in the United State Department of Agriculture: 1883-1993. Washington, DC, USA: USDA, ARS.

Dalal SS, Patnaik N, 1963. Kudzu cultivation for soil conservation. Indian Forestry, 89:468-473.

D'Arcy WG, 1987. Flora of Panama. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden.

Davis DE, Funderburk HH Jr., 1964. Eradication of kudzu. Weeds, 12:62-63.

EPPO, 2007. Pueraria lobata. Data sheets on quarantine pests. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 37:230-235.

EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm

Erdman LW, 1967. Legume inoculation: What it is? What does it do? USDA Farmers' Bulletin, No. 2003.

Everest JW, Miller JH, Ball DM, Patterson MG, 1991. Kudzu in Alabama: History, uses and control. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, USA. http://www.aces.edu/department/ipm/kudzu.htm.

Farris J, Reilly CC, 2000. The biological control of kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, 116:AB2.

Fescemyer HW, Erlandson CM, 2003. Influence of diet on the density-dependent phase polymorphism of velvetbean caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental Entomology, 22(5):933-941.

Forseth IN, Teramura AH, 1986. Kudzu leaf energy budget and calculated transpiration: the influence of leaflet orientation. Ecology, 67(2):564-571

Forseth IN, Teramura AH, 1987. Field photosynthesis, microclimate and water relations of an exotic temperate liana, Pueraria lobata, kudzu. Oecologia, 71(2):262-267

Frankel E, 1989. Distribution of Pueraria lobata in and around New York City. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 116(4):390-394

Heider B, Fischer E, Berndl T, Schultze-Kraft R, 2007. Analysis of genetic variation among accessions of Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata and Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth. based on RAPD markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54(3):529-542. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=102893

Hepper FN, 1958. Papilionoideae. In: Keay RW, ed. Flora of West Tropical Africa. London, UK: Crown Agents.

Hintz HF, 1993. Kudzu. Equine Practice, 15:5-6.

Hnatiuk RJ, 1990. Census of Australian vascular plants. 1990, xvi + 650 pp.; Australian flora and fauna series No. 11; 10 ref.

Hnatiuk RJ, 1990. Census of Australian Vascular Plants. Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 11. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Howard RA, Proctor GR, 1957. Vegn. Bauxitic Soils-Jamaica, II. J. Arnold Arbor, 38(2):151-169.

ILDIS, 2007. International Legume Database and Information Service. Reading, UK: School of Plant Sciences, Unversity of Reading. http://www.ildis.org/

Jarvis BB, Pavanasasivam G, Bean GA, 1985. Mycotoxin production from Myrothecium species, In: Lacey J, ed. Trichothecenes and Other Mycotoxins. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 221-231.

Jiang Z, Xi P, Sun J, Britton KO, 2000. Diseases of kudzu in China. Phytopathology, 90:S39.

Kay SH, Hoyle ST, 1997. Comparison of herbicides for kudzu control. Southern Weed Science Society, 50:139.

Kidd KA, Orr DB, 2001. Comparative feeding and development of Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on kudzu and soybean foliage. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 94(2):219-225; 38 ref.

Lind EM, Jones MT, Long JD, Weiss MR, 2001. Ontogenetic changes in leaf shelter construction by larvae of Epargyreus clarus (Hesperiidae), the Silver-spotted Skipper. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, 54(3):77-82; 20 ref.

Liogier HA, 1985. La Flora de la Española, Vol. III. San Pedro de Macoris, Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic: Universidad Central del Este.

Mangum WA, Brooks RW, 1997. First Records of Megachile (Callomegachile) sculpturalis Smith (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in the continental U.S. Journal of the Kansas Entomoloogical Society, 70:140-142.

Martin R, Miller JH, 1981. Soil active herbicides for kudzu control. Report of a screening study. Highlights of Agricultural Research, Auburn University, 28(4):20

McKee R, Stephens JL, 1943. Kudzu as a farm crop. Washington DC. USDA Farmers' Bulletin 1923:13 pp.

Michael JL, 1982. Some new possibilities to control kudzu. In: Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Atlanta, Georgia, January 19-21, 1982. Atlanta. Georgia, USA: Southern Weed Science Society, 237-240.

Miller J, 1988. Kudzu eradication trials with new herbicides. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, 41:220-225.

Miller JH, 1982. Kudzu control chemicals. Proceedings 35th Annual Meeting Southern Weed Science Society, USA, 241-243.

Miller JH, 1985. Testing herbicides for kudzu eradication on a Piedmont site. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 9(2):128-132

Miller JH, 1986. Kudzu eradication trials testing fifteen herbicides. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society, 39th annual meeting, 276-281

Miller JH, 1991. Control kudzu on your land. Forest Farmer, 51:7-11.

Miller JH, Edwards B, 1983. Kudzu: where did it come from? And how can we stop it? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 7(3):165-169.

Miller JH, True RE, 1986. Herbicide tests for kudzu eradication. Georgia Forest Research Paper, No. 65:11 pp.

Mitich LW, 2000. Kudzu [Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi]. Weed Technology, 14(1):231-235; 16 ref.

Morel W, 2003. Soybean rust characteristics on kudzu. USDA APHIS PPQ, USA. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/soybean_rust/detection4.html.

Nelson LR, 1997. Kudzu eradication guidelines. Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA. http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/publications/ec656/.

Pappert RA, 1998. Population genetic variation and heterotic patterns of Pueraria lobata Ohwi (Kudzu). M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Pappert RA, Hamrick JL, Donovan LA, 2000. Genetic variation in Pueraria lobata (Fabaceae), an introduced, clonal, invasive plant of the southeastern United States. American Journal of Botany, 87(9):1240-1245; 37 ref.

Pemberton RW, 1988. Northeast Asia as a source for biological control agents for North American weeds. In: Delfosse E, ed. Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Mar. 6-11, 1988. Rome, Italy: Instituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale, Ministero dell' Agricoltura e delle Foreste, 651-657.

Pemberton RW, 1996. The potential of biological control for the suppression of invasive weeds of southern environments. Castanea, 61(3):313-319; 36 ref.

PIER, 2007. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. USA: Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html

Poolpol U, Pupipat U, 1985. Morphology, development, induced teliospore formation and host range of Phakopsora pachyrhizi Syd. Soybean Rust Newsletter, 7:26-27

Rhoden EG, Woldeghebriel A, Small T, 1991. Kudzu as a feed for Angora goats. Tuskegee Horizons, 2:23.

Robertson J, 1997. Return to the kudzu patch. Forest Landowner, Nov/Dec:32-34.

Rosen A, 1982. Feasibility study: eradication of kudzu with herbicides and revegetation with native tree species in two National Parks. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Research/Resources Management Report, Ser-59:59 pp.

Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, 2007. Australia's Virtual Herbarium. Sydney, Australia: Royal Botanic Gardens. http://avhtas.tmag.tas.gov.au/

Sasek TW, Strain BR, 1988. Effects of carbon dioxide enrichment on the growth and morphology of Kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Weed Science, 36(1):28-36

Sasek TW, Strain BR, 1989. Effects of carbon dioxide enrichment on the expansion and size of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) leaves. Weed Science, 37(1):23-28

Schotman CYL, 1989. Plant pests of quarantine importance to the Caribbean. RLAC-PROVEG, No. 21:80 pp.

Sharkey TD, Loreto F, 1993. Water stress, temperature, and light effects on the capacity for isoprene emission and photosynthesis of kudzu leaves. Oecologia, 95(3):328-333

Shimoda T, Shinkaji N, Amano H, 1997. Prey stage preference and feeding behaviour of Oligota kashmirica benefica (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), an insect predator of the spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Experimental & Applied Acarology, 21(10/11):665-675; 25 ref.

Shurtleff W, Aoyagi A, 1977. The Book of Kudzu: A Culinary and Healing Guide. Brookline, Massachusetts, USA: Autumn Press.

Smith AE, 1988. Evaluation of new herbicides for controlling kudzu. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, 41:260.

Smith AE, 1990. Kudzu control in non-forested areas with herbicides. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report, No. 591:7 pp.

Smith RJ Jr, 1986. Biological control of northern jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) in rice (Oryza sativa) and soybeans (Glycine max) - a researcher's view. Weed Science, 34(Supplement 1):17-23

Snyder DB, 1987. Notes on some of New Jersey's USA adventive flora. Bartonia, 53:17-23.

Sorrie BA, Perkins WD, 1988. Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) in New England. Rhodora, 90:341-343.

Stevens L, 1976. King Kong Kudzu, menace to the South. Smithsonian Magazine, December:93-99.

Sturkie DG, Grimes JC, 1939. Kudzu: its value and use in Alabama. Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute Circular, 83:20 pp.

Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation, 2003. CPS/SKEW Grey List. Nyon Switzerland. http://www.cps-skew.ch/english/black_list.htm.

Sykes W, 1970. Contributions to Flora of Niue. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press.

Tabor P, Susott AW, 1941. Zero to thirty million mile-a-minute seedlings. Soil Conservation, 7:61-65.

Takahashi M, Kikuchi T, 1986. The heat effect on seed germination of some species in the initial stage of a post-fire vegetation. Ecological Review, 21:11-14.

Takasu K, Hirose Y, 1986. Kudzu-vine community as a breeding site of Ooencyrtus nezarae Ishi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), an egg parasitoid of bugs attacking soybean. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 30(4):302-304

Tanaka T, Hatano K, Watanabe M, Abbas HK, 1996. Isolation of purification and identification of 2, 5-anhydro-D-glucitol as a phytotoxin from Fusarium solani. Journal of Natural Toxins, 5:317-329.

Tayutivutikul J, Yano K, 1989. Biology of insects associated with the Kudzu plant, Pueraria lobata (Leguminosae). 1. Chauliops fallax (Hemiptera, Lygaeidae). Japanese Journal of Entomology, 57(4):831-842

Tayutivutikul J, Yano K, 1990. Biology of insects associated with the kudzu plant, Pueraria lobata (Leguminosae) 2. Megacopta punctissimum (Hemiptera, Plataspidae). Japanese Journal of Entomology, 58(3):533-539

Thornton MR, 2001. Arthropod fauna associated with kudzu (Pueraria lobata Willd.) in North Carolina. M.S. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

Trainer M, Williams EJ, Parrish DD, Buhr MP, Allwine EJ, Westberg HH, Fehsenfeld FC, Liu SC, 1987. Models and observations of the impact of natural hydrocarbons on rural ozone. Nature, 329:705-707.

USDA, 1976. Selected weeds of the United States. Washington DC. USDA Agricultural Handbook, 366:463 pp.

USDA, NRCS, 2007. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

USDA-ARS, 2007. 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.

USDA-NRCS, 2012. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

van der Maesen LGJ, 1985. Revision of the genus Pueraria DC with some notes on Teyleria Backer (Leguminosae). Agricultural University Wageningen Papers, 85-1:132 pp.

van der Maesen LGJ, Almeida SM, 1988. Two corrections to the nomenclature in revision of Pueraria DC. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 85:233-234.

Verdcourt B, 1979. A manual of New Guinea legumes. 1979. Botany Bulletin No. 11. Office of Forests, Division of Botany, Lae. pp. 645.

Verdcourt B, 1979. A Manual of New Guinea Legumes. Botany Bulletin 11. Lae, Papua New Guinea: Office of Forests, Division of Botany.

Virginia Native Plant Society, 1999. Kudzu [Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi]. Richmond, Virginia, USA: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage.

Walker HL, Tilley AM, 1997. Evaluation of an isolate of Myrothecium verrucaria from sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) as a potential mycoherbicide agent. Biological Control, 10(2):104-112; 32 ref.

Ward DB, 1998. Pueraria montana: the correct scientific name of the kudzu. Castanea, 63(1):76-77; 20 ref.

Wechsler NR, 1974. Growth and Physiological characteristics of Kudzu, Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi, in relation to its competitive success. MA thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Went FW, 1960. Blue hazes in the atmosphere. Nature, 187:641-643.

Zidak NK, Backman PA, 1996. Biological control of Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) with the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolica. Weed Science, 44:645-649.

Contributors

Top of page

28/11/2007 Updated by:

Nick Pasiecznik, Consultant, France

Distribution Maps

Top of page
Distribution map American Samoa: Present
EPPO, 2014Australia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Australia
See regional map for distribution within the countryAustralia
See regional map for distribution within the countryAustralia
See regional map for distribution within the countryAustralia
See regional map for distribution within the countryBermuda: Present, introduced
Schotman, 1989; EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014Brazil: Present, introduced, not invasive
Morel, 2003; EPPO, 2014Bhutan: Present, native
ILDIS, 2007Switzerland: Present, few occurrences, introduced, not invasive
EPPO, 2007; Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation, 2003; EPPO, 2014China: Present
EPPO, 2014China: Present
EPPO, 2014China
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryChina
See regional map for distribution within the countryDominican Republic: Present, introduced, not invasive
Liogier, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Dominican Republic: Present, introduced, not invasive
Liogier, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Fiji: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Micronesia, Federated states of: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007; EPPO, 2014Indonesia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Indonesia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Indonesia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndonesia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndonesia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007India
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryIndia
See regional map for distribution within the countryItaly: Present, few occurrences
EPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007Jamaica: Present, introduced, not invasive
Howard & Proctor, 1957; EPPO, 2014Jamaica: Present, introduced, not invasive
Howard & Proctor, 1957; EPPO, 2014Japan: Present
EPPO, 2014Japan
See regional map for distribution within the countryJapan
See regional map for distribution within the countryJapan
See regional map for distribution within the countryJapan
See regional map for distribution within the countryKorea, DPR: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Korea, Republic of: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Laos: Present, native
ILDIS, 2007Mexico: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Mexico: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Malaysia: Present
EPPO, 2014Malaysia
See regional map for distribution within the countryMalaysia
See regional map for distribution within the countryNew Caledonia: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Norfolk Island: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Niue: Present, introduced, not invasive
Sykes, 1970; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014New Zealand: Present
EPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007Panama: Present, introduced, not invasive
D'Arcy, 1987; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Panama: Present, introduced, not invasive
D'Arcy, 1987; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014French Polynesia: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Philippines: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Philippines: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Pakistan: Present, native, not invasive
Ali, 1977; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Palau: Present, native
PIER, 2007Palau: Present, native
PIER, 2007Paraguay: Present, introduced, not invasive
Morel, 2003; EPPO, 2014Russian Federation
See regional map for distribution within the countrySolomon Islands: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Sierra Leone: Present, introduced, not invasive
Hepper, 1958; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Thailand: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Tonga: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Taiwan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Taiwan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007USA: Restricted distribution
EPPO, 2014USA: Restricted distribution
EPPO, 2014USA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryUSA
See regional map for distribution within the countryVietnam: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Vanuatu: Present, introduced
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Samoa: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007
  • = 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
Download KML file Download CSV file
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

Distribution map (asia) Bhutan: Present, native
ILDIS, 2007China: Present
EPPO, 2014Anhui: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Fujian: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Guangdong: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Guangxi: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Guizhou: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Hainan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Hubei: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Hebei: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Hong Kong: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Heilongjiang: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Henan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Hunan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Jilin: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Jiangsu: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Liaoning: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Sichuan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Shandong: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Shanxi: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Yunnan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Zhejiang: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Indonesia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Irian Jaya: Present, not invasive
Verdcourt, 1979Java: Present, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007India: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Arunachal Pradesh: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Delhi: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Gujarat: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Karnataka: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Maharashtra: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Meghalaya: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Manipur: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Nagaland: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Sikkim: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007West Bengal: Present, introduced
ILDIS, 2007Japan: Present
EPPO, 2014Hokkaido: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Honshu: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Kyushu: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Ryukyu Archipelago: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Korea, DPR: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Korea, Republic of: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Laos: Present, native
ILDIS, 2007Malaysia: Present
EPPO, 2014Peninsular Malaysia: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Sarawak: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Philippines: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Pakistan: Present, native, not invasive
Ali, 1977; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Palau: Present, native
PIER, 2007Thailand: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Taiwan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Vietnam: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
Distribution map (europe) Switzerland: Present, few occurrences, introduced, not invasive
EPPO, 2007; Swiss Commission for Wild Plant Conservation, 2003; EPPO, 2014Italy: Present, few occurrences
EPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007Russian Far East: Present, native
USDA-ARS, 2007
Distribution map (africa) Sierra Leone: Present, introduced, not invasive
Hepper, 1958; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014
Distribution map (north america) Bermuda: Present, introduced
Schotman, 1989; EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014Dominican Republic: Present, introduced, not invasive
Liogier, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Jamaica: Present, introduced, not invasive
Howard & Proctor, 1957; EPPO, 2014Mexico: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007USA: Restricted distribution
EPPO, 2014Alabama: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Arkansas: Widespread, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007Connecticut: Present, introduced, not invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002District of Columbia: Present, introduced
USDA-NRCS, 2012Delaware: Present, introduced, not invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007Florida: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Georgia: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Hawaii: Present, introduced
USDA-NRCS, 2012Illinois: Present, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Indiana: Present, introduced
USDA-NRCS, 2012; USDA-NRCS, 2007Kansas: Present, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007Kentucky: Present, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2012Louisiana: Widespread, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007Massachusetts: Present, introduced, not invasive
Sorrie & Perkins, 1988Maryland: Present, introduced, not invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007Missouri: Present, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Mississippi: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014North Carolina: Present, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985New Jersey: Present, introduced, not invasive
Snyder, 1987New York: Present, introduced, not invasive
Frankel, 1989Ohio: Present, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-ARS, 2007Oklahoma: Present, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Oregon: Present, introduced, not invasive
Colquhoun, 2000Pennsylvania: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985South Carolina: Present, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Tennessee: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Texas: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Virginia: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985Washington: Present, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2012West Virginia: Present, introduced, invasive
USDA-NRCS, 2002; USDA-NRCS, 2007
Distribution map (central america) Dominican Republic: Present, introduced, not invasive
Liogier, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Jamaica: Present, introduced, not invasive
Howard & Proctor, 1957; EPPO, 2014Mexico: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Panama: Present, introduced, not invasive
D'Arcy, 1987; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014USA: Restricted distribution
EPPO, 2014Florida: Widespread, introduced, invasive
van der Maesen, 1985
Distribution map (south america) Brazil: Present, introduced, not invasive
Morel, 2003; EPPO, 2014Panama: Present, introduced, not invasive
D'Arcy, 1987; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Paraguay: Present, introduced, not invasive
Morel, 2003; EPPO, 2014
Distribution map (pacific) American Samoa: Present
EPPO, 2014Australia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Australian Northern Territory: Present, introduced
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, 2007New South Wales: Present, introduced, not invasive
Hnatiuk, 1990Queensland: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Victoria: Present
Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, 2007China: Present
EPPO, 2014Fiji: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Micronesia, Federated states of: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007; EPPO, 2014Indonesia: Present
EPPO, 2014; ILDIS, 2007Irian Jaya: Present, not invasive
Verdcourt, 1979New Caledonia: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Norfolk Island: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Niue: Present, introduced, not invasive
Sykes, 1970; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014New Zealand: Present
EPPO, 2014; EPPO, 2007French Polynesia: Present, introduced, invasive
PIER, 2007Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Philippines: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Palau: Present, native
PIER, 2007Solomon Islands: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; EPPO, 2014Tonga: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Taiwan: Present, native, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007Vanuatu: Present, introduced
van der Maesen, 1985; ILDIS, 2007; EPPO, 2014Samoa: Present, introduced, not invasive
van der Maesen, 1985; PIER, 2007