Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Panicum repens
(torpedo grass)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Panicum repens (torpedo grass)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 24 November 2019
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Panicum repens
  • Preferred Common Name
  • torpedo grass
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Monocotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • As a rhizomatous perennial species, P. repens has proved to be a difficult to control invasive plant in some areas where it has been introduced, most notably in Florida, USA. In the USA, it is listed as a prohibited noxious weed in Arizona and a noxi...

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Left, panicles exserted 10-15 cm above foliage, about 10 (5-20) cm long, with 1-3 branches per node, usually quite stiffly erect. Right, rhizomes up to 1 cm thick, nodes at 10-15 cm intervals tend to be swollen, each bearing a viable but often dormant bud.
TitleInflorescence and rhizome
CaptionLeft, panicles exserted 10-15 cm above foliage, about 10 (5-20) cm long, with 1-3 branches per node, usually quite stiffly erect. Right, rhizomes up to 1 cm thick, nodes at 10-15 cm intervals tend to be swollen, each bearing a viable but often dormant bud.
Copyright©Chris Parker/Bristol, UK
Left, panicles exserted 10-15 cm above foliage, about 10 (5-20) cm long, with 1-3 branches per node, usually quite stiffly erect. Right, rhizomes up to 1 cm thick, nodes at 10-15 cm intervals tend to be swollen, each bearing a viable but often dormant bud.
Inflorescence and rhizomeLeft, panicles exserted 10-15 cm above foliage, about 10 (5-20) cm long, with 1-3 branches per node, usually quite stiffly erect. Right, rhizomes up to 1 cm thick, nodes at 10-15 cm intervals tend to be swollen, each bearing a viable but often dormant bud. ©Chris Parker/Bristol, UK
a, Ligule, ventral view; b1-2, spikelet, two views.
TitleWhole plant - line drawing
Captiona, Ligule, ventral view; b1-2, spikelet, two views.
CopyrightSEAMEO-BIOTROP
a, Ligule, ventral view; b1-2, spikelet, two views.
Whole plant - line drawinga, Ligule, ventral view; b1-2, spikelet, two views.SEAMEO-BIOTROP

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Panicum repens L. 1762

Preferred Common Name

  • torpedo grass

Other Scientific Names

  • Panicum aquaticum A.Rich. 1851
  • Panicum arenarium Brot. 1804
  • Panicum chromatostigma Pilg. 1902
  • Panicum convolutum Beauv. ex Spreng. 1825
  • Panicum hygrocharis Steud. 1854
  • Panicum ischaemoides Retz. 1786
  • Panicum leiogonum Delile 1812
  • Panicum nyanzense K. Schum., 1897

International Common Names

  • English: creeping panic
  • Spanish: gramma del norte
  • French: panic rampant
  • Portuguese: escalracho

Local Common Names

  • Argentina: paja voladora
  • Bangladesh: baranda
  • Brazil: capim-torpedo
  • Brunei Darussalam: huma; kerunong
  • Cambodia: chhlong
  • Cuba: alpiste de tierra
  • Egypt: beid el-homaar; neseela na'-ame; zommaar; zommeirentaya
  • Germany: Torpedogras
  • India: injipilla; karigaddi
  • Indonesia: jajahean; lampuyangan; rumput jae-jae
  • Indonesia/Java: suket balungan; suket lempuyangan
  • Israel: dohan zohel
  • Italy: panico strisciante
  • Japan: haikibi
  • Malaysia: kerunong padi; metubong; rumput kerbau; telur padi
  • Mexico: zacate carrillo
  • Myanmar: myet-kha
  • Netherlands: victoriagras
  • Pakistan: chimacara; surpurrcharela
  • Philippines: luya-luyahan; maralaya
  • Poland: proso rozlogowe
  • Senegal: bamba subu; ekena; eselek
  • South Africa: kruipgras
  • Sri Lanka: etora
  • Taiwan: pu-shu-tsao
  • Thailand: ya-chan ka; yakhaemman; ya-onoi
  • Turkey: tuylu dari
  • USA/Hawaii: wainaku grass

EPPO code

  • PANHY (Panicum hygrocharis)
  • PANRE (Panicum repens)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page
As a rhizomatous perennial species, P. repens has proved to be a difficult to control invasive plant in some areas where it has been introduced, most notably in Florida, USA. In the USA, it is listed as a prohibited noxious weed in Arizona and a noxious weed in Alabama, Hawaii and Texas. In Florida it is designated an invasive exotic (FLEPPC, 2004). It is not included on the Australian noxious weed list nor on the Global Invasive Species Database of IUCN. It is considered invasive and a danger in the Pacific region (PIER, 2004).

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Monocotyledonae
  •                     Order: Cyperales
  •                         Family: Poaceae
  •                             Genus: Panicum
  •                                 Species: Panicum repens

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page
P. repens is a name universally recognized, with no synonyms currently used. The only confusions may occur in East Africa, with the closely related P. repentellum, and in the Americas, with P. gouini (see Similarities with Other Pests).

Description

Top of page
P. repens is a rhizomatous perennial grass which can form extensive dominant swards with foliage and inflorescences up to 100 cm high, though more commonly to about 50 cm.

Culms have bladeless scales at the base. Leaves are in two ranks, bright green to slightly glaucous, stiff, almost erect, 15-20 cm long, about 1 cm wide, tapering gradually to an acute tip, sparsely hairy on the upper surface, smooth and sometimes with a waxy bloom on the lower. Leaf sheaths have long white hairs along the margin. The ligule is a very short membrane, 0.5 mm long, fringed with long white hairs.

Robust rhizomes, up to 1 cm thick, grow horizontally at depths down to 20 cm or more and up to several metres distance. Nodes at 10-15 cm intervals tend to be swollen and each bears a viable but often dormant bud.

Panicles exserted 10-15 cm above foliage, about 10 (5-20) cm long, with 1-3 branches per node, usually quite stiffly erect. Spikelets 2-flowered pale green/glaucous, sometimes tinged with purple, oblong-ovate, acute or slightly acuminate, 2.5-3 mm long. Lower glume 1-3 nerved, broadly ovate one-fifth to one-third as long as the spikelet, upper glume and lower lemma similar, 7-nerved, as long as the spikelet. Upper lemma shorter, pale and glossy. Anthers three, yellow-orange, stigmas purple, caryopsis (seed) lanceolate, pale, white or straw-coloured.

Plant Type

Top of page
Aquatic
Grass / sedge
Herbaceous
Perennial
Vegetatively propagated

Distribution

Top of page
P. repens is an Old World species, most widespread in Africa and Asia but now occurring throughout the tropics and sub-tropics between about 35°S and 43°N. Although it has been suggested that further spread northwards in the USA is unlikely owing to its susceptibility to freezing conditions (Wilcut et al., 1988a), it does persist in Masvingo Province of Zimbabwe where temperatures fall below 0°C in some years. In the tropics it may occur up to 2000 m altitude.

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.

Last updated: 17 Feb 2021
Continent/Country/Region Distribution Last Reported Origin First Reported Invasive Reference Notes

Africa

BotswanaPresentNative
CameroonPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
Central African RepublicPresentNative
Côte d'IvoirePresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
EgyptPresentNativeOriginal citation: Täckholm (1974)
EswatiniPresentNative
EthiopiaPresentNative
GhanaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
GuineaPresent, WidespreadNative
KenyaPresentNative
LiberiaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
MaliPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
MoroccoPresentNative
NamibiaPresentNative
NigerPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
NigeriaPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
SenegalPresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
Sierra LeonePresentNativeOriginal citation: Hepper and ed. (1972)
South AfricaPresentNative
SudanPresentIntroduced
TanzaniaPresentNative
-Zanzibar IslandPresentNative
UgandaPresentNative
ZimbabwePresentNative

Asia

BangladeshPresentIntroduced
BruneiPresentIntroduced
CambodiaPresentIntroduced
ChinaPresentIntroduced
Hong KongPresentIntroduced
IndiaPresent, Localized
-Andhra PradeshPresentIntroduced
-AssamPresentIntroduced
-BiharPresentIntroduced
-KarnatakaPresentIntroduced
-KeralaPresentIntroduced
-MaharashtraPresentIntroduced
-MeghalayaPresentIntroduced
-OdishaPresentIntroduced
-RajasthanPresentIntroduced
-Tamil NaduPresentIntroduced
-TripuraPresentIntroduced
-UttarakhandPresentIntroduced
IndonesiaPresentIntroduced
-Irian JayaPresentIntroduced
-JavaPresentIntroduced
-SulawesiPresentIntroduced
-SumatraPresentIntroduced
IraqPresentIntroduced
IsraelPresentIntroduced
JapanPresentIntroduced
LaosPresentIntroduced
MalaysiaPresent, WidespreadIntroduced
MyanmarPresentIntroduced
NepalPresentIntroduced
North KoreaPresentIntroduced
PhilippinesPresent, WidespreadIntroduced
Saudi ArabiaPresent, LocalizedIntroduced
SingaporePresentIntroduced
South KoreaPresentIntroduced
Sri LankaPresent, WidespreadIntroduced
TaiwanPresent, WidespreadIntroduced
ThailandPresent, WidespreadIntroduced
VietnamPresentIntroduced

Europe

AlbaniaPresentIntroduced
CyprusPresentIntroduced
Federal Republic of YugoslaviaPresentIntroduced
FrancePresentIntroduced
-CorsicaPresentIntroduced
GreecePresentNative
ItalyPresentNative
PortugalPresentIntroduced
SpainPresentIntroduced
-Balearic IslandsPresentIntroduced

North America

Costa RicaPresent
CubaPresentIntroduced
Dominican RepublicPresentIntroduced
Puerto RicoPresentIntroduced
United StatesPresent
-AlabamaPresentIntroducedInvasive
-CaliforniaPresentIntroducedInvasive
-FloridaPresentIntroducedInvasive
-HawaiiPresent, WidespreadIntroducedInvasive
-LouisianaPresentIntroducedInvasive
-MississippiPresentIntroducedInvasive
-North CarolinaPresentIntroduced
-South CarolinaPresentIntroduced
-TexasPresentIntroducedInvasive

Oceania

AustraliaPresentIntroduced
Northern Mariana IslandsPresentIntroduced
PalauPresentIntroduced

South America

ArgentinaPresentIntroduced
BoliviaPresentIntroduced
BrazilPresentIntroduced
-BahiaPresentIntroduced
-GoiasPresentIntroduced
-Mato Grosso do SulPresentIntroduced
-Minas GeraisPresentIntroduced
-ParanaPresentIntroduced
-Rio de JaneiroPresentIntroduced
-Santa CatarinaPresentIntroduced
-Sao PauloPresentIntroduced
ParaguayPresentIntroduced
UruguayPresentIntroduced

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page
P. repens has become established as an invasive species beyond its natural range through introduction as a fodder species. It is cultivated on wet alluvial sandy soils in Africa, South America, North America and India but is very difficult to eradicate once established. After it was introduced into Pakistan for this purpose it did not persist (Cope, 1982).

Risk of Introduction

Top of page
The greatest risk of further spread would be through introduction to a new area for use as a forage or for stabilising eroded soils. A full risk assessment should be carried out prior to any introduction. The species is a prohibited plant in southern USA.

Habitat

Top of page

A plant of generally wet places, both coastal and inland, occurring naturally along the edges of rivers, irrigation channels, lakes and brackish shorelines. It does not tolerate long-term submergence (Thayer and Haller, 1990), but may occur as a component of floating islands, in succession to, or as a co-dominant with e.g. Eichhornia crassipes or Cyperus papyrus. Natural habitats are often sandy, but it is able to persist in heavy soils that remain moist due to high rainfall, poor drainage or irrigation. It is most commonly a weed of perennial plantation crops in the humid tropics, but may also occur in moist sub-tropical situations (e.g. southern Europe) and as a weed in annual crops where tillage is not sufficiently deep and drainage is poor.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ManagedManaged forests, plantations and orchards Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial ManagedManaged grasslands (grazing systems) Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalRiverbanks Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Terrestrial Natural / Semi-naturalWetlands Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
LittoralCoastal areas Present, no further details

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page

Biology and Ecology

Top of page
Genetics

Accessions from Egypt and India are diploid with a chromosome number of 2n = 36 (MOBOT, 2004).

Physiology and phenology

P. repens is a serious weed mainly on account of its perennial habit, including its ability to spread and persist by rhizomes in any moist situations where there is inadequate deep tillage. Once a new plant is established, rhizomes develop within a few weeks, growing horizontally for several metres, usually at 5-20 cm depth, but sometimes deeper. Hossain et al. (1996) reported rhizomes mostly in the top 30 cm but some down to 42 cm in a reddish soil in southern Japan. They also recorded that one rhizome node could give rise to over 20,000 new rhizome buds in 365 days. Most axillary buds on the rhizome remain dormant until there is fragmentation by cultivation. Pieces of rhizomes with six nodes are able to regenerate from 8-16 cm depth (Wilcut et al., 1988a). Under suitable conditions, new plants can develop from any single-node segment of rhizome. P. repens is resistant to fire (Weber, 2003).

Reproductive biology

Seeds are usually produced in considerable numbers but may be unimportant as a means of spread in some localities. Flowering and seed production are said to be rare, e.g. in Java, while Chandrasena and Dhammika (1988) show that different clones of the weed in Sri Lanka may differ significantly in flowering behaviour. Seeds are sometimes claimed to be non-viable but Moreira (1976a, 1978) has shown germination levels up to 100%. Dormancy may be high in young seed, but germination can be enhanced by chilling, nitrate and alternating temperatures, e.g. between 20 and 30°C. Populations in Florida, USA, do not produce viable seed (Weber, 2003).

Ecology

The weed can occur in a wide range of soil types and is not sensitive to pH between 4.2 and 6.7 (Wilcut et al., 1988a) or to moderate-to-high salinity (up to 10,000 p.p.m.) (Peng et al., 1977; Peng and Twu, 1979; Nemoto et al., 1987). Although adapted to wet conditions and presumably needing these for active growth, it can, once established, survive moderately prolonged drought conditions, particularly where there is a high water table. Optimum temperatures for growth are 30-35°C and it is killed by persistent frost (Wilcut et al., 1988b). It prefers open sunny conditions but persists in semi-shaded plantation crop situations.

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
620 1500

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 19 27
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) 25 31
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) 16 22

Rainfall

Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration07number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall

Rainfall Regime

Top of page
Bimodal
Summer
Uniform
Winter

Soil Tolerances

Top of page

Soil drainage

  • impeded
  • seasonally waterlogged

Soil reaction

  • acid

Soil texture

  • heavy
  • light
  • medium

Special soil tolerances

  • saline

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Parasteneotarsonemus panici Herbivore
Toya tuberculosa Pathogen
Ustilago hypodytes Pathogen

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page
Lists of natural enemies are given by Moreira (1976b) and by Waterhouse (1994) but there are no reports of serious damage from natural insect enemies or fungi, nor serious consideration of their potential for biological control. Waterhouse (1994) also noted that most of the arthropod enemies are polyphagous pests of crops which might explain the absence of any serious attempt to find biological control agents. Insects do not hold promise but records of fungal pathogens merit investigations. There may be host-specific species or forma speciales which might be introduced into areas where they are not present. There is one report of the white amur (grass carp - Ctenopharyngodon idella) consuming P. repens where it occurs as part of a floating island vegetation (Sutton et al., 1977).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page
Natural dispersal

P. repens spreads by means of rhizomes. Seed is rarely produced.

Agricultural practices

P. repens is planted in grazing land and may invade adjacent areas if not carefully managed. A careful impact assessment should be made before introducing the species as forage to a new area.

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/Rhizomes Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye
True seeds (inc. grain) Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope

Wood Packaging

Top of page
Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Loose wood packing material
Non-wood
Processed or treated wood
Solid wood packing material with bark
Solid wood packing material without bark

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Animal/plant collections None
Animal/plant products None
Biodiversity (generally) Negative
Crop production Negative
Environment (generally) Negative
Fisheries / aquaculture Negative
Forestry production None
Human health None
Livestock production None
Native fauna Negative
Native flora Negative
Rare/protected species None
Tourism Negative
Trade/international relations None
Transport/travel Negative

Impact

Top of page
P. repens is a troublesome weed in a wide range of perennial crops, being noted by Holm et al. (1977) as a serious or principal weed of sugarcane in Taiwan and Hawaii; pineapple in West Africa; tea in India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka; various orchard crops in Thailand; rubber, coconut and oil palm in Malaysia; also of rice in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In a number of these situations it is listed as one of the three most serious weeds. There are few estimates of crop losses but Peng and Sze (1974) report that in Taiwan rhizome density can reach 15 t/ha, while a density of 5 t/ha can cause 50% reduction in sugarcane yield. It is also reported to have allelopathic effects (Perera et al., 1989; Chon, 1989).

P. repens may act as an alternative host to rice leafhopper, Ustilago and Pyricularia spp. (Holm et al., 1977).

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of page
As P. repens spreads by means of rhizomes, it can form dense pure swards that replace native species (Weber, 2003). In the Lake Okeechobee area of Florida, USA, the grass has spread over thousands of acres of the Lake's western marsh, displacing native plants and the valuable fish and wildlife habitat that they once provided (LOPP, 2004).

Social Impact

Top of page
P. repens can build up along irrigation canals and drainage ditches requiring costly control programmes. It also has to be controlled in golf course turf in Florida, USA (Busey, 2003).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page
Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
Impact outcomes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts tourism
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Reduced native biodiversity
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Pest and disease transmission
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page
P. repens has been widely used as a forage species. Its salt tolerance makes it a useful species for reclaiming saline soils (Ghaly, 2002). It is a source of ethno-medicines in India (Kaushal-Kumar, 2002).

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Fodder/animal feed
  • Forage

Environmental

  • Erosion control or dune stabilization

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page
Not readily confused with other commonly occurring perennial grass weeds but in eastern and southern Africa, a closely related species P. repentellum also occurs, in similar wet habitats. The latter is distinguished by a smaller more delicate habit, and nerveless lower glume. In southern USA, Central and South America, a further closely related species, P. gouini(i), occurs. This is also less robust and almost glabrous. It is not certain to what extent either of these species may also occur as weeds.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.

Cultural

The use of leguminous smothering crops is important and effective in plantation crops in sufficiently humid climatic conditions, e.g. in oil palm or rubber. In Florida wetlands, maintenance of high water levels favours indigenous species and reduces spread of P. repens (David, 1999).

Mechanical

Among traditional weeding methods, hoeing and hand-weeding are ineffective, owing to strong and rapid regrowth from the underground rhizome system. Tillage can be effective but it must be deep enough to disturb as many of the rhizomes as possible, and persistent enough and under the right climatic and soil conditions to result in good desiccation. One or two cultivations under wet conditions may serve only to spread the problem.

Chemical

Older herbicides used for control of P. repens include dalapon and asulam and these may still have applicability in particular situations, e.g. in sugarcane (Peng et al., 1977; Yeh and Wang, 1980) and along irrigation channels (Panchal, 1981). MSMA was reported by Coats (1974) to be inferior to asulam for control of P. repens in turf, but MSMA has been tested with some success in tea (e.g. Soedarsan et al., 1974). Quinclorac has also been shown to be an effective treatment in turf (Busey, 2003). Otherwise the herbicide of choice where crop safety allows, is glyphosate. Split doses a few weeks apart have given better results than a single application (Chandrasena, 1990). At lower doses activity may be decreased in hard water (Ca 5 mM) or in the presence of iron salts (Shilling et al., 1990a) or in mixtures with triazine or urea herbicides, whereas activity may be enhanced by various additives including ammonium sulphate, kaolin and surfactants (Kathiravetpillai and Punyasiri, 1989; Shilling et al., 1990b; Reddy and Singh, 1992). Fluazifop-butyl was not fully effective in Florida citrus (Singh et al., 1985) and Seth and Madin (1984) found glyphosate superior to fluazifop-butyl. However, working with fluazifop-P-butyl, Chandrasena (1989, 1991) was able to improve performance with surfactant and oil additives. In pot experiments Parker (1982) found both fluazifop-butyl and sethoxydim to have activity at least equal to that of glyphosate. These two graminicides should be of value in broad-leaved crops. Imazapyr has given longer-lasting control than glyphosate in irrigation channels (Nir, 1988).

References

Top of page

Busey P, 2003. Reduction of torpedograss (Panicum repens) canopy and rhizomes by quinclorac split applications. Weed Technology, 17(1):190-194; 9 ref.

Chandrasena JPNR, 1989. Fluazifop-butyl activity on perennial torpedograss (Panicum repens L.). Proceedings, 12th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference Taipei, Taiwan; Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society, No. 1:159-164

Chandrasena JPNR, 1990. Torpedograss (Panicum repens L.) control with lower rates of glyphosate. Tropical Pest Management, 36(4):336-342

Chandrasena JPNR, 1991. Enhancement of fluazifop-P toxicity to torpedograss (Panicum repens L.) by surfactant and oil-additive. BIOTROP Special Publication, No. 40:133-143; [a symposium on aquatic weed management held in Bogor, Indonesia, 15-17 May 1990].

Chandrasena JPNR; Dhammika WHY, 1988. Studies on the biology of Panicum repens L. 1 Comparative morphological development of three selections from different geographical localities in Sri Lanka. Tropical Pest Management, 34(3):291-297

Chon CH, 1989. Allelopathic research of subtropical vegetation in Taiwan. IV. Comparative phytotoxic nature of leachate from four subtropical grasses. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 15(7):2149-2159

Clayton WD; Renvoize SA, 1982. Flora of Tropical East Africa. Graminea (Part 3). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema, 448 pp.

Coats GE, 1974. Preliminary evaluation of asulam for torpedograss control in common bermudagrass. Proceedings 27th Annual Meeting Southern Weed Science Society., 149

Cope TA, 1982. Poaceae. In: Nasir E, Ali SI, eds. Flora of Pakistan. Kew, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens.

David PG, 1999. Response of exotics to restored hydroperiod at Dupuis Reserve, Florida. Restoration Ecology, 7(4):407-410.

FLEPPC, 2004. Invasive plant list of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. World wide web page at http://www.fleppc.org.

Fröman B; Persson S, 1974. An Illustrated Guide to the Grasses of Ethiopia. Assella, Ehiopia: Chilalo Awraja Development Unit.

Ghaly FM, 2002. Role of natural vegetation in improving salt affected soil in northern Egypt. Soil and Tillage Research, 64, (3-4):173-178.

Gibbs Russell GE; Watson L; Koekemoer M; Smook L; Barker NP; Anderson HM; Dellwitz MJ, 1990. Grasses of Southern Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa No 58. Pretoria, South Africa: National Botanic Grdens/ Botanical Research Institute.

Hepper FN, ed. , 1972. Flora of West Tropical Africa, Volume III (Part 2), 2nd edn. London, UK: Crown Agents.

Hitchcock AS, 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States. USDA Miscellaneous Publication 200. Washington, D.C., USA: USDA.

Holm LG; Pancho JV; Herberger JP; Plucknett DL, 1979. A geographical atlas of world weeds. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 391 pp.

Holm LG; Plucknett DL; Pancho JV; Herberger JP, 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University Press of Hawaii.

Hossain MA; Ishimine Y; Akamine H; Muruyama S, 1996. Growth and development characteristics of torpedo grass (Panicum repens L.) in Okinawa Island southern Japan. Weed Research, Japan, 41:323-331.

Jena SN; Tripathy S; Sarangi SK; Biswal S, 2002. Integrated weed management in direct seeded rainfed lowland rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 34(1/2):32-35; 5 ref.

Kathiravetpillai A; Punyasiri PAN, 1989. Effect of additives on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to Panicum repens (L.) Beauv. Sri Lanka Journal of Tea Science, 58(2):118-123

Kaushal Kumar; Kumar K; Singh VK; Govil JN; Singh G, 2002. Ethnopharmacognostical studies on Panicum repens L. In: Recent Progress in Medicinal Plants. Vol 1: Ethnomedicine and pharmacognosy. Houston, USA: Sci Tech Publishing.

LOPP, 2004. World wide web page at http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/wrp/wrp_okee/2_wrp_okee_inlake/2_wrp_okee_inlake.html.

Lorenzi H, 1982. Weeds of Brazil, terrestrial and aquatic, parasitic, poisonous and medicinal. (Plantas daninhas de Brasil, terrestres, aquaticas, parasitas, toxicas e medicinais.) Nova Odessa, Brazil: H. Lorenzi, 425 pp.

Megh Singh; Tucker DPH, 1985. Control of annual and perennial grasses with fluazifop-butyl in citrus. Proceedings 1985 British Crop Protection Conference, Weeds, Vol.3:1039-1045

Meikle RD, 1977. Flora of Cyprus. Kew, UK: Bentham-Moxon Trust.

MOBOT, 2004. Tropicos Plant Nomenclature Database, Missouri Botanical Garden. World Wide Web page http://www.mobot.org/.

Moody K, 1989. Weeds reported in Rice in South and Southeast Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.

Moreira I, 1976. Pests and diseases of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. and Panicum repens. II Simposio Nacional de Herbologia, Oeiras, 1976, Vol. I:31-35

Moreira I, 1978. Propagation of Panicum repens by seed. Weeds and herbicides in the Mediterranean Basin: Proceedings of the Mediterranean Herbicide Symposium, Madrid, 1978. Ministerio de Agricultura. Madrid Spain, Vol. I:1-7

Moreira IR dos S, 1976. Aspects of the biology of rhizomatous weeds Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. and Panicum repens (L.). Aspectos da biologia de infestantes rizomatosas Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. e Panicum repens (L.). Universidade Tecnica, Lisbon. Portugal, Vol. 1, Vol. 2:[185]pp.;[219]pp.

Musthafa K; Potty NN, 2001. Effect of in situ green manuring on weeds in rice. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 39(2):172-174; 13 ref.

Naidu MV; Lakshmi MB, 2000. Studies on crop-weed competition in roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.). Journal of Research ANGRAU, 29(4):6-8; 2 ref.

Nemoto M; Panchaban S; Vichaidis P; Takai Y, 1987. Some aspects of the vegetation at the inland saline areas in northeast Thailand. Journal of Agricultural Science, Tokyo Nogyo Daigaku, 32(1):1-9

Nir A, 1988. Combined control of both weeds and mosquitoes in drainage canals. Phytoparasitica, 16(4):385-386

Panchal YC, 1981. Control of Panicum repens (L.) in field channels. Proceedings of the Eighth Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference., 281-286

Pandey AK; Prakash V; Singh RD; Mani VP, 2002. Studies on crop-weed competition and weed dynamics in maize under mid-hill conditions of N-W Himalayas. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 34(1/2):63-67; 7 ref.

Parker C, 1982. The activity of some new herbicides and mixtures on tropical perennial grass weeds. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 47(1):51-60

Peng SY; Sze WB, 1974. Competititon effect of Panicum repens Linn. on sugarcane and its eradication by herbicides. Taiwan Sugar, No. 5:155-166

Peng SY; Twu LT, 1979. Studies on the regenerative capacity of rhizomes of torpedo grass (Panicum repens Linn.) Part 1. Characteristics in sprouting of rhizomes and resistance to herbicides and environmental adversities. Journal of the Agricultural Association of China, No. 107:61-74

Peng SY; Wang CT; Twu LT, 1977. Sugarcane cultivation and chemical weed control in saline soils in Taiwan. Taiwan Sugar, No. 1:281-286

Perera KADN; Chandrasena JPNR; Tillekeratne LMV, 1989. Further studies on allelopathic effects of torpedograss (Panicum repens L.). Proceedings, 12th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference Taipei, Taiwan; Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society, No. 2:433-439

PIER, 2004. Pacific Islands Ecosystem at Risk (PIER). Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. http://www.hear.org/pier/species/.

Reddy KN; Singh M, 1992. Organosilicone adjuvants increased the efficacy of glyphosate for control of weeds in citrus (Citrus spp.). HortScience, 27(9):1003-1005

Retana-Sánchez K; Agüero-Alvarado R; Montiel-Longhi M; Brenes-Prendas S, 2013. First report of Panicum repens L., as a potential weed in Costa Rica. (Primer reporte de Panicum repens L. como potencial maleza en Costa Rica.) Agronomía Mesoamericana, 24(1):189-193. http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=437

Seth AK; Madin RW, 1984. Current status of weed control practices in tropical plantations with special references to South-East Asia. Proceedings, 7th Australian Weeds Conference, 1984, Volume 2, 24-38.

Sharma SK; Bhunia SR, 1999. Weed management in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) under Ghaggar flood plains of north-west Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 44(3):543-547; 6 ref.

Shilling DG; Haller WT; Mossler MA, 1990. Influence of diluent ions on glyphosate activity on torpedo grass (Panicum repens L.). Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on aquatic weeds, Uppsala, Sweden, 13-17 August 1990., 187-192.

Shilling DG; Haller WT; Willard TR; Mossler MA, 1990. Influence of surfactants and additives on phytotoxicity of glyphosate to torpedograss. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management, 28:23-27.

Shukla U, 1996. The Grasses of North-Eastern India. Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers, 325 pp.

Soedarsan A; Mubijanto BO; Suhendar E; Santika H, 1974. Screening of herbicides in productive tea, assessed from the viewpoint of the 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.

Suryawanshi RT; Narkhede TN; Patil RB; Wadile SC, 2001. Evaluation of weed management practices in groundnut in Maharashtra, India. International Arachis Newsletter, No.21:48-49.

Sutton DL; Steward KK; Perkins BD; Vandiver VV, 1977. Control of aquatic plant growth. Annual Research Report, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida, 1975., 324-325.

Thayer PL; Haller WT, 1990. Fungal pathogens, Phoma and Fusarium, associated with declining populations of torpedograss growing under high water stress. Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on aquatic weeds, Uppsala, Sweden, 13-17 August 1990., 209-214; 6 ref.

TSckholm V, 1974. Students' Flora of Egypt. Cairo, Egypt: Cairo University.

Tutin TG; Heywood VH; Burges NA; Moore DM; Valentine DH; Walters SM; Webb DA, 1980. Flora Europaea. Volume 5. Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 452pp.

USDA-NRCS, 2004. US Department of Agriculture Plants Database, World wide web page at http://www.plants.usda.gov/.

Waterhouse DF(Editor), 1994. Biological control of weeds: Southeast Asian prospects. Canberra, Australia; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), v + 302 pp.

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.

Weber E, 2003. Invasive plant species of the world: A reference guide to environmental weeds. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 548 pp.

Wilcut JW; Dute RR; Truelove B; Davis DE, 1988. Factors limiting the distribution of cogongrass, Imperata cylindrica, and torpedograss, Panicum repens. Weed Science, 36(5):577-582

Wilcut JW; Truelove B; Davis DE; Williams JC, 1988. Temperature factors limiting the spread of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) and torpedograss (Panicum repens). Weed Science, 36(1):49-55

Yeh HJ; Wang JT, 1980. Comparison of Dowpon MS (dalapon-sodium + magnesium salts) and Dowpon (dalapon-sodium) on weed control in sugar cane fields (improved solubility). Taiwan Sugar, 27(2):62-63

Distribution References

Anon, 1980. Flora Europaea. Volume 5. Alismataceae to Orchidaceae (Monocotyledones). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 452pp.

Anon, 1987. Weeds of rice in Indonesia. Jakarta, Indonesia: Balai Pustaka. xvi + 716pp.

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Clayton W D, Renvoize S A, 1982. Flora of Tropical East Africa. Gramineae (Part 3). Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. 448pp.

Cuong N L, Cohen M B, 2002. Field survey and greenhouse evaluation of non-rice host plants of the striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), as refuges for resistance management of rice transformed with Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 92 (3), 265-268. DOI:10.1079/BER2002163

Fröman B, Persson S, 1974. An Illustrated Guide to the Grasses of Ethiopia., Assella, Ehiopia: Chilalo Awraja Development Unit.

Gibbs Russell GE, Watson L, Koekemoer M, Smook L, Barker NP, Anderson HM, Dellwitz MJ, 1990. Grasses of Southern Africa. In: Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa No 58, Pretoria, South Africa: National Botanic Grdens/ Botanical Research Institute.

Hitchcock A S, 1950. Manual of the grasses of the United States. In: USDA Miscellaneous Publication, Washington DC, USA: USDA.

Holm L G, Plucknett D L, Pancho J V, Herberger J P, 1977. The world's worst weeds. Distribution and biology. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: University Press of Hawaii. 610 pp.

Holm L, Pancho J V, Herberger J P, Plucknett D L, 1979. A geographical atlas of world weeds. New York, Chichester (), Brisbane, Toronto, UK: John Wiley and Sons. xlix + 391 pp.

Jena S N, Tripathy S, Sarangi S K, Biswal S, 2002. Integrated weed management in direct seeded rainfed lowland rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 34 (1/2), 32-35.

Jordá C, Font I, Lázaro A, Juarez M, Ortega A, Lacasa A, 2000. New natural hosts of tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Disease. 84 (4), 489. DOI:10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.4.489D

Kiran G G R, Rao A S, 2013. Survey of weed flora in transplanted rice in Krishna agroclimatic zone of Andhra Pradesh, India. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 19 (1), 45-51. http://www.wssp.org.pk/4-19-1-45-51.pdf

Lorenzi H, 1982. Plantas daninhas de Brasil, terrestres, aquaticas, parasitas, toxicas e medicinais. Nova Odessa, Brazil: H. Lorenzi. 425 pp.

Meikle R D, 1977. Flora of Cyprus. Volume One. Kew, UK: Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic Gardens. xii + 832 pp.

Moody K, 1989. Weeds reported in rice in South and Southeast Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. 442 pp.

Munirathnam P, Kumar K A, 2014. Survey of weed flora in major crops of Nandyal region in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Research ANGRAU. 42 (3/4), 142-146. http://www.angrau.ac.in/journalofresearchangrau.php

Musthafa K, Potty N N, 2001. Effect of in situ green manuring on weeds in rice. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 39 (2), 172-174.

Naidu M V, Lakshmi M B, 2000. Studies on crop-weed competition in roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.). Journal of Research ANGRAU. 29 (4), 6-8.

Pandey A K, Prakash V, Singh R D, Mani V P, 2002. Studies on crop-weed competition and weed dynamics in maize under mid-hill conditions of N-W Himalayas. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 34 (1/2), 63-67.

PIER, 2004. Pacific Islands Ecosystem at Risk (PIER)., Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. http://www.hear.org/pier/species/

Retana-Sánchez K, Agüero-Alvarado R, Montiel-Longhi M, Brenes-Prendas S, 2013. First report of Panicum repens L., as a potential weed in Costa Rica. (Primer reporte de Panicum repens L. como potencial maleza en Costa Rica.). Agronomía Mesoamericana. 24 (1), 189-193. http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=437

Sharma S K, Bhunia S R, 1999. Weed management in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) under Ghaggar flood plains of north-west Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 44 (3), 543-547.

Shukla U, 1996. The Grasses of North-Eastern India., Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers. 325 pp.

Suryawanshi R T, Narkhede T N, Patil R B, Wadile S C, 2001. Evaluation of weed management practices in groundnut in Maharashtra, India. International Arachis Newsletter. 48-49.

USDA-NRCS, 2004. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov

Waterhouse D F, 1993. The major arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Southeast Asia. Canberra, Australia: ACIAR. v + 141 pp.

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map
Select a dataset
Map Legends
  • CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Extent
Invasive
Origin
Third party data sources: