Pennisetum pedicellatum (deenanath 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
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Biology and Ecology
- Air Temperature
- Soil Tolerances
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- 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
- Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.
Preferred Common Name
- deenanath grass
Other Scientific Names
- Eriochaeta secundiflora Figari & De Notaris
- Pennisetum amoenum A. Rich.
- Pennisetum densiflorum (Figari & DeNot) T. Durand & Schinz
- Pennisetum dillonii Steud.
- Pennisetum implicatum Steud.
- Pennisetum lanuginosum Hochst.
International Common Names
- English: annual kyasuwa grass; dinanath grass; feather pennisetum; kayasuwa grass; kyasuma grass; kyasuwa grass; perennial dinanath
Local Common Names
- Australia: dryland napier grass
- Nigeria: Nigeria grass
- PESPE (Pennisetum pedicellatum)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page P. pedicellatum is an aggressive grass weed, commonly invading agricultural land in the tropics, where dense infestations can force the abandonment of whole farms. It spreads quickly and is difficult to control. It has been widely introduced in the previous several decades as a potential forage grass and has escaped from cultivation. There are risks of its further introduction, to e.g. tropical America where it would pose a serious threat to agriculture.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Monocotyledonae
- Order: Cyperales
- Family: Poaceae
- Genus: Pennisetum
- Species: Pennisetum pedicellatum
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The genus Pennisetum is derived from the Latin 'pinna' meaning feather, and 'seta' meaning stiff hair, alluding to the bristle-like involucre of many species of this genus. It is a large genus divided into five sections: Gymnothrix, Eu-Pennisetum, Pennicillaria, Heterostachya, and Brevivalvula. P. pedicellatum belongs to section Brevivalvula, tribe Paniceae. It is closely related to P. atrichum, P. glaucum, P. hordeoides, P. pedicellatum, P. polystachion, P. setosum (syn. P. polystachion) and P. subangustum, which together form a polyploid and agamic complex (Schmelzer, 1997). Two subspecies are accepted, subsp. pedicellatum and subsp. unispiculum.
DescriptionTop of page P. pedicellatum is an annual tufted grass, rarely perennial in subsp. unispiculum. Grass culms are herbaceous; reaching a height of 30-150 cm; leaves hairy, 5-25 cm long and 4-15 mm wide, arranged in two rows. Inflorescence is a tight panicle, cylindrical, 5-15 cm long and 10-15 mm wide; inflorescence exerted from uppermost leaf-sheath; rachis angular, puberulous, and very rarely pubescent; branches ending in bristle-like appendages. Upper glume and lower lemma more or less 3-lobed, 2.5-6 mm long; upper lemma obtuse, thinly coriaceous, ciliolate at the apex, readily disarticulating from the rest of the spikelet. Spikelets 4-6 mm long solitary, falling entire at maturity with bristles. Spikelets in clusters of 1-5 within the involucre, at least one of the spikelets upon a pedicel 1-3 mm long; bristles densely woolly plumose, forming a fluffy ovate involucre 0.5-1 cm long. 2-flowered, lower floret of fertile spikelet male, upper bisexual or female, bisexual mixed in the same inflorescence, lower glume shorter than florets, completely surrounded by a ring of bristles. Bristles free to base, fine and thread-like. Involucre bristles hairy, rhachis glabrous, spikelets pedicelled within involucre (Hepper, 1972; Poilecot, 1995).
Plant TypeTop of page Annual
Grass / sedge
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.Last updated: 23 Nov 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Benin||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Sinsin (1993); Poilecot (1995); Holou (2002)|
|Burkina Faso||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Cabo Verde||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Cameroon||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Eritrea||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Ethiopia||Present, Localized||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Holm et al. (1977); Poilecot (1995); EPPO (2020)|
|Gambia||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Ghana||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Guinea||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Kenya||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Mali||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Mauritania||Present||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Niger||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Nigeria||Present, Localized||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Holm et al. (1977); Poilecot (1995); EPPO (2020)|
|Senegal||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Sudan||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Tanzania||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Togo||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Zambia||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995)|
|Bhutan||Present, Localized||Introduced||Noltie (2000)|
|India||Present, Localized||Native||Invasive||Heper (1972); Poilecot (1995); EPPO (2020)|
|-Andaman and Nicobar Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gangwar and Jayan (1986)|
|-West Bengal||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Mukherjee et al. (1982)|
|Indonesia||Present||Introduced||Holm et al. (1977)|
|Malaysia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1977); EPPO (2020)|
|Nepal||Present||Introduced||1997||Invasive||Siwakoti and Varma (1997)|
|Philippines||Present||Introduced||Holm et al. (1977)|
|Thailand||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1977); EPPO (2020)|
|United States||Present||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Florida||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||CABI (Undated a)|
|Australia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Mott (1980); Groves (1991); EPPO (2020)|
|-Northern Territory||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Doughton (1974); Mott (1980)|
|-Queensland||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1943||Invasive||Holm et al. (1977); Harrison (1983)|
|Fiji||Present, Localized||Introduced||Holm et al. (1977); EPPO (2020)|
|Norfolk Island||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gangwar and Jayan (1986)|
|Solomon Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gangwar and Jayan (1986)|
|U.S. Minor Outlying Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gangwar and Jayan (1986)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page These species are thought to be native to tropical Africa (Schmelzer and Renno, 1997), widespread in the sudanian and guinean zones from West to East Africa. It has been widely introduced as a drought-resistant fodder grass and has escaped from cultivation to become a serious invasive weed notably in Asia but also in Australia and the Pacific. Many of these introductions have been relatively recent. In Australia, P. pedicellatum was used in trials for the screening of potential pasture plants with early reports indicating its good yield and average quality (Anon., 1957), and from the 1960s to the 1980s a gradual spread occurred unwittingly aided by its establishment at a number of experiment sites. The species was reported as an addition to the flora of Nepal in 1997 (Siwakoti and Varma, 1997). This weed was introduced as a fodder crop to the Andaman islands, India (Gangwar and Jayan, 1986; Krishna and Kumar, 1996).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page P. pedicellatum is regulated as a federal noxious weed in USA.
HabitatTop of page The species is widespread in sudanian and guinean savannahs of Africa though sparse in littoral areas, where it is a common agricultural weed, present on cultivated fields, also managed grasslands as well as extensively grazed savannahs. It is a weed in tropical uplands and croplands following disturbance or forest clearing, but is less common within forests and plantations, performing poorly under dense shade. Where introduced in India and Nepal it is also found on cultivated and pasture lands (Shukla et al., 1988; Siwakoti and Varma, 1997).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production)||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|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Natural grasslands||Present, no further details|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Cold lands / tundra||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Deserts||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page P. pedicellatum is commonly found in many crops; it was found to be abundant in maize fields but scarce in cotton fields in Thailand (Yongboonkird, 1971) and is important in sorghum in Australia (Groves, 1991).
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
Biology and EcologyTop of page Genetics
Cytological studies of the perennial accession type Agros-4 of P. pedicellatum revealed it to be an octoploid (2n=72) with a base chromosome number of x=9. Detailed cytological analysis and the nature of chromosome pairing at microsporogenesis suggest a segmental allopolyploid origin of the taxon (Zadoo et al., 1997). However, the annual form of the weed in Australia was shown to have a chromosome number of 2n=36 (Harrison, 1983). Studies indicate that P. pedicellatum might hybridize with P. polystachion (Hepper, 1972).
Physiology and Phenology
Seedling growth varied considerably with temperature with the highest growth at a constant temperature of 32°C. P. pedicellatum responds well to nitrogen fertilization, with maximum yields (13 t DM/ha) obtained at 145 kg N/ha (Mukherjee et al., 1982). In Orissa, P. pedicellatum sown at the end of March gave fresh fodder yields of 55.7-81 t/ha and 82.1-128.5 t/ha when harvested 82 and 110 days after sowing, respectively (Mandal and Vamadevan, 1978). P. pedicellatum tiller number per plant increased with row spacing and highest yields were obtained with a 15 cm inter-row spacing (Ferris and Poudal, 1995). Cross-sowing of P. pedicellatum and Vigna unguiculata at 100% sowing rates of 12 and 40 kg seeds/ha, respectively, gave 53.30 t/ha fresh fodder and 11.50 t DM/ha (Prasad et al., 1990). The chemical composition of P. pedicellatum plants varied with the phenology (Banerjee and Mandal, 1974; Upadhyay et al., 1978; Jakhmola and Pathak; 1983).
Dry matter content of P. pedicellatum is 17-44% (Singh and Premchand Rahaman, 1972). Applied nitrogen increased below ground biomass, root length and root length density of P. pedicellatum (Vinod et al., 1996). Moreover, root growth was greatest at a 75-day cutting frequency, with the presence of mycorrhiza provoking a change in protein profiles and enzymes in the roots of P. pedicellatum (Ramesh et al., 2000). P. pedicellatum inoculated with Glomus mosseae, G. aggregatum and Gigaspora margarita, showed that G. margarita induced increased protein content, and acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, superoxide dismutase and chitinase activities were highest at the beginning of infection, but declined as the infection advanced. G. margarita was an efficient fungus in enhancing enzyme activity and proteins in roots compared with Glomus mosseae and G. aggregatum.
Embryogenesis has been studied (Shobha and Sindhe, 2000) and P. pedicellatum has apomictic reproductive behaviour (Chaix and Marchais, 1996). Seed yield in P. pedicellatum depends upon flowering period, flag-leaf area and number of panicles per plant (Muralimohanreddy and Chatterji, 1975), increasing linearly with nitrogen rates from 0.80 to 1.21 t/ha (Ramamurthy et al., 1998). Uniform ability for germination of P. pedicellatum seed is obtained at temperatures of 25-35°C (Afolayan and Olugbami, 1993). Hull-imposed dormancy was evident and removal of husks facilitated germination (Parihar et al., 1997). To facilitate P. pedicellatum seed germination, Maiti et al. (1981) proposed soaking for 24 h in 1% nitric acid or scarification with sandpaper. Seeds of P. pedicellatum showed 94% viability with maximum seedling emergence with seed sown on the soil surface and a progressive decrease in emergence at greater soil depths; with percentage germination of 45% and 19.2% at depths of 2 cm and 6 cm, respectively (Ezeigwe and Olunuga, 1974), and no germination below 7 cm. Germination was reduced under continuous light or darkness as compared to under alternating light and dark conditions (Afolayan and Olugbami, 1993). Storage length affects seed germination, with percentage germination of 8 week-old seed found to be 175% by Ramamurthy et al. (1998), or 12% germination at 10 weeks after harvest and 73-100% germination at 20-66 weeks, with maximum germination (95-100%) at 34-66 weeks after harvest (Paramathma and Surendran, 1990).
P. pedicellatum is a tropical to sub-tropical species, tolerant to a range of rainfall regimes from semi-arid to humid. It is tolerant of salinity, though increased salinity affected growth (Varshney and Baijal, 1977). The species controlled water loss effectively and has a very strong recovery ability after watering even under severe drought conditions (Noitsakis et al., 1994).
On cultivated areas, the species is often associated with other weeds such as Andropogon pseudapricus, A. gayanus, A. fastigiatus, Aristida kerstingii, Loudetia togoensis and Pennisetum polystachion, and is considered as a characteristic species of young fallow (Poilecot, 1995). There are a number of recorded natural enemies, though their effects on the growth of P. pedicellatum are not known. Cynodon mosaic virus is associated with P. pedicellatum, first reported on Cynodon dactylon from India (Bhargava et al., 1971) and causing a systemic chlorotic mottling and is transmitted by mechanical inoculation and by aphids. It is also known to infect Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor. In Senegal, endomycorrhizal fungal (Glomus sp., Scutellospora verrucosa and S. gregaria) colonization by P. pedicellatum was poorly developed (Duponnois et al., 2001). Moreover, fungi such as Glomus intaradices, Sclerocystis rubiformis, Scutellospora gregaria, Scutellospora verrucosa were obtained in the rhizospheric soil of P. pedicellatum in Senegal (Ahmed et al., 1998). Also, Acaulospora sp., Glomus contrictum were obtained from the soil under P. pedicellatum using Lycopersicum esculentum and Lolium perenne as host plants. There are no reports on the mycorrhizal status of P. pedicellatum in semi arid soils, therefore the high spore density which can be obtained under this species may have come from other plants such as Acacia senegal, Combretum glutinosum, Piliostigma reticulatum, etc., which are known to harbour mycorrhiza (Cucousso, 1991). P. pedicellatum is usually associated with large nematode populations (Cadet and Floret, 1995), with Longidorus brevis described from Senegal (Swart et al., 1996) and Meloidogyne incognita in India (Vaishnav and Sethi, 1977). The contribution of termites to the breakdown of P. pedicellatum straw was estimated to be over 70% (Mando and Brussaard, 1999), indicating that it is an important resource for termites.
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||15|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||26||28|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||35|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||18|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||2||6||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||500||11000||mm; lower/upper limits|
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Special soil tolerances
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page P. pedicellatum is recorded as a larval food plant for the immature stages of the lepidopteran Borbo impar lavinia (Syn. Baoris impar) in Australia (Meyer, 1997; Michael, 2000). Commonly known as 'yellow swift', it feeds at night on various grasses and various subspecies are found from Indonesia to the Solomon islands. Larvae of the rice leaffolder or rice leaf roller, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Spilomelini: Pyraustinae: Pyralidae) (syn. Botys nurscialia) were observed feeding inside rolled leaves of P. pedicellatum growing along the edges of rice-fields in Madhya Pradesh, India, the first record of the rice pest infesting this grass in India (Patel, 1973). It is a pest throughout South-East Asia feeding on rice (Oryza sativa) and is known to migrate making control difficult. The species is found from China to Australia, as far south as Port Macquarie in New South Wales (Ian, 1990). Finally, in India, severe brown leaf spot disease of P. pedicellatum was caused by Pyricularia grisea (syn. Magnaporthe grisea) (Saikia et al., 1982; Bhaskar and Ahmad, 1994).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page The factors associated with P. pedicellatum potential are prolific seedling, and windborne seed dispersal, a highly competitive and smothering growth habit, and poor values as dry standing feed. The collection of P. pedicellatum as a cut and carry fodder to livestock also contributes to the movement of the weed.
Pathway VectorsTop of page
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|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||seeds|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||seeds|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||leaves|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||seeds|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page Holm et al. (1979) indicate that P. pedicellatum is a 'serious' weed (highest category) in Nigeria and Thailand, and a 'principal' weed in Australia. As an agricultural weed, P. pedicellatum reduces farmers' profit margins by reducing crop yields; but according to its fodder value, it contributes to meeting the fodder requirements for livestock in rural areas. The species may be serving as an alternative host of downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola), but on the other hand, the resistance of such a species to this disease has been suggested as promising for breeding resistance in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) (Singh and Navi, 2000).
Environmental ImpactTop of page P. pedicellatum has positive benefits in controlling soil erosion and improving the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Kumar and Jena, 1996).
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page In some habitats where the species is undesirable, P. pedicellatum can replace natural plants and then reduce species richness.
Social ImpactTop of page P. pedicellatum can be so aggressive when invading agricultural land in the tropics that dense infestations have been known to force the abandonment of whole farms with the subsequent negative social impact.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Has high reproductive potential
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page P. pedicellatum is widely used as green fodder for cattle (Skerman and Riveros, 1990; Sinsin, 1993; Cisse et al., 2002; Holou, 2002); however, P. pedicellatum was found to be inferior to sorghum fodder primarily because of lower voluntary intake (Awadhesh et al., 2000). The supplementation of late-harvested forage with cottonseed meal increased intake and digestibility, attributed to greater stimulation of rumen flora as a result of increased availability of energy and nitrogen-providing nutrients (Nianogo et al., 1997). Protein content is 20.50% (Mishra et al., 1996), and cutting at 60-65 days results in a high crude protein (9.06%), high crude fat (2.55%) and low crude fibre (28.95%) contents (Khan et al., 1995). Mean daily dry matter intakes of P. pedicellatum reached 2.175 kg/100 kg bodyweight according to the animal; nitrogen balance is 1.3 g per day, and daily nitrogen excretion in urine is 4.86 g (Jakhmola and Pathak, 1983). The chemical composition of P. pedicellatum plants varied with the phenology (Banerjee and Mandal, 1974; Upadhyay et al., 1978; Jakhmola and Pathak; 1983). Balances of N, Ca and P were all negative. Nutritive value was calculated in terms of total digestible nutrients to be 52.77% for dry matter and 7.95% on fresh weight basis; and corresponding values for digestible crude protein were 3.03 and 0.46% (Banerjee and Mandal, 1974). These data demonstrate the important nutritive value of the species.
In the Sahel, P. pedicellatum is also used as mulch in the rehabilitation of encrusted soil. The biological activity, mainly from termites, in mulched plots was the most important factor in the efficacy of mulching. In the plains of Chhattisgarh, India, the species is used for fuel (Misra, 1958). A mixture of chopped P. pedicellatum straw and clay is also used in the building of houses and straw is used to make mats and for roof thatch; a juice from leaves has medicinal purposes (Poilecot, 1995). P. pedicellatum has also been sown to control soil erosion and to improve the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Kumar and Jena, 1996).
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page At the subspecies level, P. pedicellatum subsp. pedicellatum is characterised by an involucre surrounding 2-5 spikelets, among which one at least is carried by a pedicel 1.5-3.5 (-5) mm long, whereas P. pedicellatum subsp. unispiculum's involucre surrounds only one spikelet which is carried by one pedicel 0.5-1 (-1.5) mm long. This subspecies is mainly found on coastal and saline sites (Poilecot, 1995). Flowering time of the first subspecies is August-October (December), whereas the second subspecies flowers during October-November. P. pedicellatum may be confused with P. polystachyon and P. purpureum, but is separable by having spikelets pedicelled or in groups of two to five (Holm et al., 1977).
Prevention and ControlTop 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.
P. pedicellatum is a serious weed but can be controlled by timely cultivation (Doughton, 1974). Management by grazing at critical times may reduce seed production, but observations indicate that affects are limited.
Hand pulling can be effective on young seedling but it is impractical on large plants. Mechanical cutting is used and has an effect on the growth of the species, recorded for the maximization of production of the species as a fodder, with Prasad (1996) noting increased green forage yields higher with 2 cuts (36.2 t) than with 3 (31.1 t) or 4 cuts (29.9 t); and respective seed yields were 0.85, 0.33 and 0.14 t.
P. pedicellatum has been sucessfully controlled in Australia with glyphosate (McGowan, 1970), and the success of low application rates in no-till situations confirms the significant reduction of the species by judicious timing of spraying. Pre-emergence, spraying soil with trifluralin and nitralin, and bromacil and picloram, prevented germination of P. pedicellatum seed for 5 weeks (Suwunnamek, 1974) and Doughton (1974) found atrazine to be an effective pre-emergent herbicide. When seedlings were 5-10 cm high, diuron, ametryne and linuron were very effective, and when plants were 20-25 cm high, diuron, prometryne, linuron and glyphosate were effective (Suwunnamek, 1974).
No known efforts have been made towards biological control of P. pedicellatum.
ReferencesTop of page
Ahmed TD; Papa ISM; Ducousso M, 1998. Arbuscular mycorrhization fungi in the semi-arid areas of Senegal. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 35(2):65-75.
Anon., 1957. Katherine Research Station Progress Report 1946-1958. CSIRO Division of Land Research and Regional Survey. Divisional Report 57/1. Australia: CSIRO.
Awadhesh I; Verma ML; Kishore A, 2000. Comparative feeding value of Dinanath grass and sorghum fodder for crossbred heifers. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 17(4):311-314.
Banerjee GC; Mandal L, 1974. Nutritive value of Pennisetum pedicellatum grass for adult sheep. Indian Veterinary Journal, 51, 9-10: 620-625.
Bhargava KS; Joshi RD; Rishi N, 1971. Indian Phytopathology, 24:119.
Cadet P; Floret C, 1995. An initial study of fallow periods on the nematode community in the Soudanese Sahelian zone of Senegal. Acta Oecologica, 16(1):7-8.
Chaix G; Marchais L, 1996. Diversity of penicillariam millets (Pennisetum glaucum and Pennisetum purpureum) as for the compatibility between their gynoecia and pollens from some other Poaceae. Euphytica, 88:97-106.
Choubey S; Prasad NK; Bhagat RK, 1997. Suitable grass-legume combination for higher forage production. Journal of Research, Birsa Agricultural University, 9(1):81-83.
Cisse M; Ly I; Nianogo AJ; Sane I; Sawadogo JG; N'Diaye M; Awad C; Fall Y, 2002. Grazing behavior and milk yield of Senegalese Sahel goat. Small Ruminant Research, 43(1):85-95.
Cucousso M, 1991. Importance des symbioses racinaires pour l'utilisation des acacias d'Afrique de l'ouest. Dakar, Sénégal and Nogent-sur-Marne, France: Cirad-Forêt/ISRA, 205p.
Duponnois R; Plenchette C; Thioulouse J; Cadet P, 2001. The mycorrhizal soil infectivity and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spore communities in soils of different aged fallows in Senegal. Applied Soil Ecology, 17(3):239-251; 56 ref.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Ferris CP; Poudal GR, 1995. An examination of the effects of differing row-to-row spacing on the growth characteristics of Deenanath grass. Veterinary Review Kathmandu, 9-10:31-32.
Gangwar B; Jayan PK, 1986. New crop introductions in Andamans. Indian-Farming 35(11):18-21.
Harrison PG, 1983. Germination and seedling growth of the annual weed Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin. Technote No. 031. Agdex No. 641.
Heper FN, 1972. Flora of West Tropical Africa. Vol. III, Part 2. London, UK. 574p.
Holou RAY, 2002. Indicateurs du suivi écologique des parcours naturels et de la gestion des écosystèmes des fermes d'élevage de Bétécoucou et de Samiondji au Bénin. Thèse d'Ingénieur Agronome. FSA/UAC. Bénin. Abomey-Calavi, Bénin, 165p.
Ian FB, 1990. Common Moths of Australia, Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press, 355-357.
Jakhmola RC; Pathak NN, 1983. Chemical composition and nutritive value of Dinanath grass for sheep. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 53(1):94-95.
Jha AK; Arvind S; Singh AN; Singh JS; Singh A, 1999. Tree canopy development in young plantations raised on coalmine spoil affects the growth of herbaceous vegetation. Indian-Forester, 125(3):305-307.
Khan AKF; Paramathma M; Amirthadevarathinam A; Sivasamy N; Sudhakar D; Bose MSC, 1995. Deenanath Co-1: a new annual fodder grass for Tamil Nadu. Madras-Agricultural-Journal, 82(9-10):510-511.
Krishna K; Kumar K, 1996. Some new records of angiosperms for Andaman Islands. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany, 20(1):27-29.
Kumar U; Jena SC, 1996. Trial of integrated biotechnical approach in biological reclamation of coal mine spoil dumps in South-Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh). Indian-Forester, 122(12):1085-1091.
Maiti S; Purkait A; Chatterjee BN, 1981. Seed dormancy in deenanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum). Forage Research, 7(1):97-99.
Mandal BK; Vamadevan VK, 1978. Dinanath grass for more green forage. Indian Farming, 27:10-19.
McGowan AA, 1970. The effect of four herbicides on pasture yield and composition. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 10:42-47.
Meyer CE, 1997. The life history of Borbo impar lavinia (Waterhouse) (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Australian Entomologist 24: 2, 78-80.
Michael FB, 2000. Butterflies of Australia. Vol. 1. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO Publishing, 245-246.
Misra BR, 1958. Creation of fuel-cum-fodder reserves in the plains of Chhattisgarh (Madhya Pradesh). Proceedings, Farm Forestry Symposium, New Delhi, 160-168.
Mukherjee AK; Bhattacharya KK; Rana SK; Chatterjee BN, 1976. Forage production from Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin. through fertilizer nitrogen. Forage-Research, 2(2):173-174.
Mukherjee AK; Roquib MA; Bandopadhyay SK; Mandal BB, 1982. Review of research on Deenanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.). Forage Research, 8(1):11-17.
Muralimohanreddy B; Chatterji A, 1975. Correlation studies in Deenanath grass. Harvester, 17:1-2.
Nianogo AJ; Bougouma Yameogo V; Cordesse R, 1997. Intake and digestibility of two tropical grasses fed untreated, urea-treated or supplemented with nitrogen. Annales de Zootechnie, 46(5):439-449.
Noitsakis B; Nastis A; Koukoura Z; Zervas NP; Hatziminaoglou J, 1994. The optimal exploitation of marginal Mediterranean areas by extensive ruminant production systems. EAAP Publication No. 83. Proceedings of an international symposium organized by HSAP, EAAP and CIHEAM, Thessaloniki, Greece, 18-20 June, 1994, 217-220.
Noltie HJ, 2000. Flora of Bhutan including a record of plants from Sikkim and Darjeeling. Volume 3 Part 2. The Grasses of Bhutan. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and Royal Government of Bhutan.
Paramathma M; Surendran C, 1990. Germinability of seeds of some forage grasses and legumes. Madras Agricultural Journal, 77:9-12.
Parihar SS; Vinod S; Shankar V, 1997. Flowering phenology and pure germinating seed yield in perennial Dinanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.). Range Management and Agroforestry, 18(2):121-127.
Poilecot P, 1995. Les Poacées de la Côte-d'Ivoire. Manuel illustré d'identification des espèces. Boissiera 50, Genèse, 734p.
Prasad LK, 1996. Potential of perennial Deenanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin) for eastern plateau region. Journal of Research, Birsa Agricultural University, 8(1):67-70.
Prasad NK; Bhagat RK; Singh AP; Singh RS, 1990. Intercropping of Deenanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) for forage production. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 60(2):115-118.
Ramamurthy V; Vinod S; Singh JP, Shankar. V, 1998. Effect of nitrogen on seed yield of perennial Dinanath and Pennisetum trispecific hybrid. Forage Research, 24(3):153-155.
Ramesh C; Chellappan P; Mahadevan A, 2000. Comparison of protein profiles and enzymes in non-mycorrhizal and mycorrhizal roots of Pennisetum pedicellatum. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology, 38(5):483-487; 28 ref.
Schmelzer GH, 1997. Review of Pennisetum section Brevivalvula (Poaceae). Euphytica., 97(1):1-20.
Schmelzer GH; Renno JF, 1997. Genetic variation in the agamic species complex of Pennisetum section Brevivalvula (Poaceae) from West Africa. Ploidy level and isozyme polymorphism. Euphytica, 97(1):23-29.
Shobha J; Sindhe AN, 2000. Embryogenesis in Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin. (Poaceae). Taiwania, 45(2):158-166.
Shukla NP; Lal M; Saxena DC, 1988. Effect of bed types, planting techniques and soil moisture regimes on productivity of Deenanath grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.). Haryana Journal of Agronomy, 4(1):17-21.
Singh RD; Premchand Rahaman A, 1972. Herbage growth of pearl-millet-Napier grass hybrid when compared with other grasses. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 42(3):218-222.
Singh SD; Navi SS, 2000. Genetic resistance to pearl millet downy mildew II. Resistance in wild relatives. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 30(2):167-171.
Sinsin B, 1993. Phytosociologie, écologie, valeur pastorale, productivité et capacité de charge des pâturages naturels du périmètre Nikki-Kalalé au nord Bénin. PhD Thesis. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, 390p.
Skerman PJ; Riveros F, 1990. Tropical grasses. FAO Plant Protection. Series 23. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Upadhyay VS; Singh AP; Rekib A, 1978. Studies on nutritive value of Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin. at flowering stage. Forage Research, 4(2):191-194.
USDA-NRCS, 2003. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.
Vaishnav MU; Sethi CL, 1997. Reactions of some graminaceous plants to Meloidogyne incognita and Tylenchorhynchus vulgaris. Indian Journal of Nematology, 7(2):176-177.
Varshney KA; Baijal BD, 1977. Note on the influence of salinity on early seedling growth of some pasture grasses. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 11(1):59-61.
Vinod S; Shivnath R; Shankar V; Ram S, 1996. Belowground biomass of two forage grasses as influenced by nitrogen levels and cutting frequencies. Range Management and Agroforestry, 17(2):117-121.
Zadoo SN; Roy AK; Choubey RN, 1997. Cytology of a perennial octoploid cytotype of Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin: a new report. Range Management and Agroforestry, 18(1):35-39.
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Harrison PG, 1983. Germination and seedling growth of the annual weed Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.,
Heper FN, 1972. Flora of West Tropical Africa., III (2) London, UK: 574 pp.
Holou RAY, 2002. (Indicateurs du suivi écologique des parcours naturels et de la gestion des écosystèmes des fermes d'élevage de Bétécoucou et de Samiondji au Bénin)., Abomey-Calavi, Benin: FSA/UAC. 165.
Mott J J, 1980. Germination and establishment of the weeds Sida acuta and Pennisetum pedicellatum in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. 20 (105), 463-469.
Noltie HJ, 2000. Flora of Bhutan including a record of plants from Sikkim and Darjeeling. In: The Grasses of Bhutan, 3 (2) Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh and Royal Government of Bhutan.
Poilecot P, 1995. (Les Poacées de la Côte-d'Ivoire). In: Manuel illustré d'identification des espèces, 734 pp.
Sinsin B, 1993. (Phytosociologie, écologie, valeur pastorale, productivité et capacité de charge des pâturages naturels du périmètre Nikki-Kalalé au nord Bénin. PhD Thesis)., Belgium: Université Libre de Bruxelles. 390 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/