Panicum repens (torpedo grass)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Impact Summary
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop 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
- PANHY (Panicum hygrocharis)
- PANRE (Panicum repens)
Summary of InvasivenessTop 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 TreeTop 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 NomenclatureTop 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).
DescriptionTop 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 TypeTop of page Aquatic
Grass / sedge
DistributionTop 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 TableTop 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.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Bangladesh||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Brunei Darussalam||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Moody, 1989; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Cambodia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|China||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|India||Restricted distribution||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1977|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Naidu and Lakshmi, 2000|
|-Assam||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Bihar||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Karnataka||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Kerala||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Musthafa and Potty, 2001|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Suryawanshi et al., 2001|
|-Meghalaya||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Odisha||Introduced||Not invasive||Jena et al., 2002|
|-Rajasthan||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Sharma and Bhunia, 1999|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Tripura||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Shukla, 1996|
|-Uttarakhand||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Pandey et al., 2002|
|-Irian Jaya||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Soerjani et al., 1987|
|-Java||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Soerjani et al., 1987|
|-Kalimantan||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Soerjani et al., 1987|
|-Sulawesi||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Soerjani et al., 1987|
|-Sumatra||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Soerjani et al., 1987|
|Iraq||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Israel||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Japan||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Korea, DPR||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Laos||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Moody, 1989; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Malaysia||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Myanmar||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Nepal||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Moody, 1989|
|Philippines||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Saudi Arabia||Restricted distribution||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Singapore||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Waterhouse, 1993|
|Sri Lanka||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Taiwan||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Thailand||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Vietnam||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979; Waterhouse, 1993|
|Botswana||Present||Native||Not invasive||Gibbs et al., 1990|
|Cameroon||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Central African Republic||Present||Native||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Egypt||Present||Native||Not invasive||Täckholm, 1974|
|Ethiopia||Present||Native||Not invasive||Fröman and Persson, 1974|
|Ghana||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Guinea||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Kenya||Present||Native||Not invasive||Clayton and Renvoize, 1982|
|Liberia||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Mali||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Morocco||Present||Native||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Namibia||Present||Native||Not invasive||Gibbs et al., 1990|
|Niger||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Nigeria||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Senegal||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|Sierra Leone||Present||Native||Not invasive||Hepper and ed., 1972|
|South Africa||Present||Native||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Sudan||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Swaziland||Present||Native||Not invasive||Gibbs et al., 1990|
|Tanzania||Present||Native||Not invasive||Clayton and Renvoize, 1982|
|-Zanzibar||Present||Native||Not invasive||Clayton and Renvoize, 1982|
|Uganda||Present||Native||Not invasive||Clayton and Renvoize, 1982|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Native||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|USA||Present||Holm et al., 1977|
|-Hawaii||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1977|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2004|
|-South Carolina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2004|
Central America and Caribbean
|Costa Rica||Present||Retana-Sánchez et al., 2013|
|Cuba||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Dominican Republic||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Puerto Rico||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Argentina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Bolivia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Brazil||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Bahia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Goias||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Mato Grosso do Sul||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Parana||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Rio de Janeiro||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Lorenzi, 1982|
|Paraguay||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Uruguay||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Albania||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Cyprus||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Meikle, 1977|
|France||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|-Corsica||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Greece||Present||Native||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Italy||Present||Native||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Portugal||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Spain||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|-Balearic Islands||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Tutin et al., 1980|
|Australia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Northern Mariana Islands||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||PIER, 2004|
|Palau||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||PIER, 2004|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop 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 IntroductionTop 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.
HabitatTop 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 ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Riverbanks||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Coastal areas||Present, no further details|
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Ananas comosus (pineapple)||Bromeliaceae||Main|
|Arachis hypogaea (groundnut)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Camellia sinensis (tea)||Theaceae||Main|
|Capsicum annuum (bell pepper)||Solanaceae||Main|
|Cocos nucifera (coconut)||Arecaceae||Main|
|Coriandrum sativum (coriander)||Apiaceae||Main|
|Glycine max (soyabean)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Hevea brasiliensis (rubber)||Euphorbiaceae||Main|
|Hibiscus sabdariffa (Roselle)||Malvaceae||Main|
|Oryza sativa (rice)||Poaceae||Main|
|Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)||Poaceae||Main|
|Zea mays (maize)||Poaceae||Main|
Biology and EcologyTop 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).
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).
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 RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop 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|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||7||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Bimodal
Soil TolerancesTop of page
- seasonally waterlogged
Special soil tolerances
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop 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 DispersalTop of page Natural dispersal
P. repens spreads by means of rhizomes. Seed is rarely produced.
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 TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility 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 PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Loose wood packing material|
|Processed or treated wood|
|Solid wood packing material with bark|
|Solid wood packing material without bark|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||Negative|
ImpactTop 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: BiodiversityTop 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 ImpactTop 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 FactorsTop 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
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts tourism
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop 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 ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
- Erosion control or dune stabilization
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop 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 ControlTop of page 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).
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.
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).
ReferencesTop of page
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, 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
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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:pp.;pp.
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.
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
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/.
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.
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.
Shukla U, 1996. The Grasses of North-Eastern India. Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers, 325 pp.
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, 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.
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/