Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Urochloa distachya
(signal grass)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Urochloa distachya (signal grass)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Urochloa distachya
  • Preferred Common Name
  • signal grass
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Monocotyledonae
  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    Compendia
    CAB International
    Wallingford
    Oxfordshire
    OX10 8DE
    UK
    compend@cabi.org
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Urochloa distachya (L.) T.Q. Nguyen

Preferred Common Name

  • signal grass

Other Scientific Names

  • Brachiaria distachya (L.) Stapf
  • Brachiaria miliiformis (J. Presl) Chase
  • Brachiaria subquadripara (Trin.) Hitchc.
  • Digitaria distachya (L.) Pers.
  • Panicum distachyon L.
  • Panicum miliiforme J. Presl
  • Panicum subquadriparum Trin.
  • Urochloa subquadripara (Trin.) R.D. Webster

International Common Names

  • English: arm-grass millet; cori grass; green summer grass; thurston grass; tropical signal grass; two-finger grass

Local Common Names

  • Australia: atuta
  • Brazil: tanner grass

EPPO code

  • BRADI (Brachiaria distachya)

Taxonomic Tree

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

For the purposes of this datasheet, Brachiaria subquadripara/Urochloa subquadripara and B. distachya/U. distachya are treated as one entity.

Urochloa distachya and related species were formerly placed within the genus Brachiaria. The subject of this datasheet has been described as Brachiaria subquadripara (Trin.) Hitchc., which is still a preferred name in The Plant List (2013). The name was later changed to Urochloa subquadripara (Trin.) R.D. Webster, but U. subquadripara is now placed by the Catalogue of New World Grasses (Soreng et al., 2012) and ITIS (2015) as a synonym of Urochloa distachya (L.) T.Q. Nguyen.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the identity of the species. Some databases accept two separate species; The Plant List (2013) has B. subquadripara and B. distachya both as preferred names, while USDA-ARS (2015) accepts U. subquadripara and U. distachya. According to JSTOR (2015), the species U. distachya and U. subquadripara are very similar, but the ranges of spikelet length differ, which justifies the maintenance of the species as different entities. JSTOR also mentions a third similar species, U. distachyoides, native to West Africa, which differs mainly due to the absence of an internode between the two glumes.

Simon and Alfoso (2011) also consider U. subquadripara a separate species from U. distachya, distinguished by spikelet length and presence of a palea in the lower floret. Veldkamp (1996) kept the two species separate on spikelet and lemma characteristics, but said that they may well be chromosomal varieties of each other. Pohl (1980) combined the two taxa within the genus Brachiaria, while Morrone and Zuloaga (1992) and Zuloaga and Morrone (2003) combine them within Urochloa. Reinheimer and Vegetti (2008) also give the alternative names as synonyms of Urochloa distachya

The Flora of China (Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015), under the taxon Brachiaria subquadripara, mentions two varieties: Brachiaria subquadripara var. subquadripara and B. subquadripara var. miliiformis, on the basis of spikelet morphology. The former is supposed to occur in a wider range of habitats through tropical Asia and the Pacific Islands, while var. miliiformis is restricted to China, India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015).

Description

Top of page

The species is a creeping annual or short-lived perennial plant. Culms slender, straggling, rooting at lower nodes, 20–60 cm tall, nodes pubescent (Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015). The leaf blades are broadly linear to narrowly lanceolate, loose, glabrous or with tubercle-based hairs or ciliate margins, 2–8 cm long, and 3–7 mm wide. Leaf base subrounded, margins thicker and scabrous, apexacute or acuminate. Ligule a fimbriated membrane, few long hairs on shoulders. Inflorescences produce 2–3 racemes borne on a 0.5–2 cm long axis, unilateral, 2-6 cm long. Central inflorescence axis 3-10 cm long. Rachis narrowly winged, glabrous on margins, with very short scabrous hairs. Racemes are 1–3 cm long, bearing the spikelets on a narrowly winged rachis. Spikelets are narrowly elliptic, 2.4–3 mm long, glabrous, and acute, or 3.3-3.7 mm long, and slightly dorsally compressed. Spikelet packing adaxial, regular, 2 -rowed. Spikelets solitary. Fertile spikelets sessile, comprised of a basal sterile floret and a fertile floret; there is no rhachilla extension, and they fall entire. Rhachilla internodes elongated between glumes. Glumes dissimilar and reaching apex of florets, thinner than fertile lemma. The lower glume is ovate, 1/3–1/2 as long as the spikelet, clasping; membranous, without keels, 5-7-veined. Lower glume with obtuse apex, upper glume apex acute, oblong, separated from the lower by a short internode. Upper lemma rugulose, margins involute, bluntly acute. Lemma of lower sterile floret similar to upper glume, oblong, equal length of spikelet, membranous, 5 -veined, acute. Fertile lemma elliptic, 3-3.5 mm long, indurate. Basal sterile florets barren, with palea involute, indurate, surface rugose. Fruit testa glossy, with dense low papillae. Rhizomes absent. Stolons absent or present.

Forms dense stoloniferous mats. It tends to be more glabrous in damp areas, and somewhat hairy in dry areas  (Kissmann, 1997).

Distribution

Top of page

The native range of the species is not very clear, as different sources refer to different areas, and in some cases give separate distributions for B. subquadripara /U. subquadripara and B. distachya/U. distachya. Most records refer to a tropical Asian origin, and introduction to Africa and other continents. JSTOR (2015) gives the native range as  India to Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand, saying that it is only present as an introduced weed in Africa. Fritsch (2001) suggests that it is native to Asia and Australasia but introduced to tropical Africa and the Americas, while Simon and Alfonso (2011) say that U. subquadripara is native to tropical Africa and Asia, and that U. distachya is native in the northern parts of Australia.

Details of the distribution within Australia are given by Simon and Alfonso (2011). Distribution is mainly tropical and subtropical, but it also grows in arid central areas of Australia (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015). The species has been introduced and become invasive in many islands in the Pacific (PIER, 2015). It is also now present in both North and South America.

The African Plant Database (2012) reports it as present on the borders of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and between Nigeria and Benin.

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.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

CambodiaPresentNative Not invasive New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015
ChinaPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-FujianPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-GuangdongPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-GuangxiPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-GuizhouPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-HainanPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-HunanPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-JiangxiPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
-YunnanPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
Christmas Island (Indian Ocean)PresentIntroducedCSIRO, 2010; Simon and Alfonso, 2011
IndiaPresentNative Not invasive JSTOR, 2015
JapanPresentNative Not invasive New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015
MalaysiaPresentNative Not invasive Schultze-Kraft, 1992
MyanmarPresentNative Not invasive Schultze-Kraft, 1992
PakistanPresentNative Not invasive New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015
Sri LankaPresentNative Not invasive Schultze-Kraft, 1992; JSTOR, 2015
TaiwanPresentNative Not invasive Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015
ThailandPresentNative Not invasive JSTOR, 2015

Africa

BeninPresentAfrican Plant Database, 2012Conflict in native range data
CongoPresentAfrican Plant Database, 2012Conflict in native range data
Congo Democratic RepublicPresentAfrican Plant Database, 2012Conflict in native range data
MauritiusPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
NigeriaPresentAfrican Plant Database, 2012Conflict in native range data
TanzaniaPresentAfrican Plant Database, 2012Conflict in native range data
TogoPresentFAO, 2015

North America

MexicoPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2015
USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-FloridaPresentIntroducedWunderlin and Hansen, 2008
-HawaiiPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2015
-MarylandPresentIntroducedUSDA-NRCS, 2015
-TexasPresentIntroduced Invasive Hatch, 2010

Central America and Caribbean

PanamaPresentIntroduced Invasive Kissmann, 1997
Puerto RicoPresentIntroducedNew Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015

South America

BrazilPresentIntroducedNew Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015
-AmapaPresentIntroduced Invasive I3N-Brasil, 2015
-BahiaPresentIntroduced Invasive I3N-Brasil, 2015
-Espirito SantoPresentIntroduced Invasive I3N-Brasil, 2015
-Mato GrossoPresentIntroduced Invasive I3N-Brasil, 2015

Oceania

American SamoaPresentIntroduced Invasive PIER, 2015Introduced to Pacific Islands, often invasive
AustraliaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-Australian Northern TerritoryPresentIntroducedCSIRO, 2010; Simon and Alfonso, 2011
-New South WalesPresentIntroducedCSIRO, 2010; Simon and Alfonso, 2011
-QueenslandPresentIntroducedCSIRO, 2010; Simon and Alfonso, 2011
-Western AustraliaPresentIntroducedCSIRO, 2010; Simon and Alfonso, 2011
Cook IslandsPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
FijiPresentIntroduced Invasive PIER, 2015
GuamPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
KiribatiPresentPIER, 2015
Micronesia, Federated states ofPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
NauruPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
NiuePresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
Northern Mariana IslandsPresentPIER, 2015
PalauPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
Papua New GuineaPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
SamoaPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
Solomon IslandsPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
TokelauPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
TongaPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
VanuatuPresentIntroducedPIER, 2015
Wallis and Futuna IslandsPresentIntroduced Invasive PIER, 2015

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Brazil Congo   Forage (pathway cause) Yes Kissmann (1997)
Fiji 1927 New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (2015)

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

A number of risk assessments for this species have concluded that it is a high risk, and should not be introduced. In Brazil, the Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development listed it as high risk and should be rejected for introduction. Florida also listed it for rejection (Gordon et al., 2008). In New Zealand, uncertainties about potential distribution and preferred habitat feed back into uncertainty regarding what risk the species poses economically and environmentally to specific habitats and industries in the country (New Zealand Department for Primary Industries, 2015).

U. distachya has high potential for further spread as many species in the genus are used as forage. Initial introductions are mostly deliberate, then the species spreads via vectors associated with cattle production and farming machinery, as well as roads, streams and other connecting pathways.

Habitat

Top of page

In Australia, it grows in sandy soils in disturbed places, along roads and railway lines in Eucalypt forest, dune forest, various types of woodland and shrubland (CSIRO, 2010). The species widely occurs as a weed in tropical and subtropical rain forests, tropical and subtropical sub-humid woodlands, and coastal grasslands (Simon and Alfonso, 2011).

Widely adapted to the warm lowland tropics, it is particularly suited to monsoon environments. It prefers medium- to light-textured soils of medium to high fertility. It is a shade-tolerant tropical grass, which makes it particularly valuable for shaded pastures, as in tree plantations (Schultze-Kraft , 1992).

Invasive in wetlands and river flats subjected to flooding. The species is abundant in wetlands and flooded areas, and resists temporary flooding very well, when it acquires substantial green mass that floats on top of the water (Carbonari et al., 2003).

The species is capable of tolerating a wide range of habitats and environmental conditions. Adapted to a wide variety of soil types, including fertility, humidity and lighting conditions. Common on sandy soils and sandy alluvium, tolerates clay soils (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015). In China it is found on hill slopes, grassy places, fields, and in open forests (Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategorySub-CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial
Terrestrial – ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Secondary/tolerated habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Secondary/tolerated habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Secondary/tolerated habitat Productive/non-natural
Managed grasslands (grazing systems) Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed grasslands (grazing systems) Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
Industrial / intensive livestock production systems Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
Disturbed areas Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Disturbed areas Principal habitat Natural
Rail / roadsides Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Rail / roadsides Principal habitat Natural
Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-naturalNatural grasslands Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Natural grasslands Principal habitat Natural
Freshwater
Irrigation channels Secondary/tolerated habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)
Rivers / streams Secondary/tolerated habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

There are different references to chromosome numbers (PROTA, 2015):

a)     n = 36 (Basappa et al., 1987)

b)    2n = 72 (Pohl and Davidse, 1971)

c)     n = 36, 42 (Mehra, 1982)

d)    2n = 54-56, 72 (Hitchcock, 1929)

e)     2n = 36, 72 (Kissmann, 1997)

Reproductive Biology

In Australia, this species flowers throughout the year (Simon and Alfonso, 2011). It also reproduces vegetatively, developing roots from nodes in the culms in contact with the soil. Stolons develop into new culms, forming clones. Kissmann (1997) reports in Brazil that reproduction is mainly vegetative. Carbonari et al. (2003) also say that this perennial grass reproduces mainly vegetatively by abundant stolons, producing few seeds of low reproductive capacity.

Some sources acknowledge dispersal by seeds as well as vegetatively, with seed dispersal by birds and bats (in Fiji) as well as by wind, gravity, animals, and possibly water (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015).

Germination in the field occurs when soil temperatures reach 77°F (25oC) in Florida, USA. Dry seasons can delay seed germination (Teuton et al., 2005).

Physiology and Phenology

Urochloa spp. have PEPCK biochemical type, C4 photosynthesis (Kissmann, 1997).

Environmental Requirements

U. distachya requires light availability, moisture, and warm temperatures.

Climate

Top of page
ClimateStatusDescriptionRemark
Af - Tropical rainforest climate Preferred > 60mm precipitation per month
Am - Tropical monsoon climate Preferred Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25]))
Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year Preferred Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 25

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

U. distachya can be introduced through commerce of forage seeds as a seed contaminant (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015). It can spread via roads, railways and streams (CSIRO, 2010), and through contaminated machinery, produce, soil or stock feed (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015), and on shoes and gardening equipment (lawn mowers, etc.).

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Cultural/amenity Negative
Economic/livelihood Positive and negative
Environment (generally) Negative

Economic Impact

Top of page

U. distachya is a host of Blissus leucopterus, a serious pest to several grasses, including cultivated plants such as rice, wheat, maize and sugarcane (Kissmann, 1997).

If cattle are fed on this grass for several days it generates serious intoxication. The symptons are deep eyes, walking difficulty, soft, very green faeces, and reddish urine. If not transferred to a different pasture the animals may die, but tend to recover once the change in forage is provided. This grass has a higher concentration of nitrates than other Urochloa species (Kissmann, 1997).

The species is highly invasive in flooded rice plantations and in irrigation canals (Kissmann, 1997). In the 1980s it was the major problem at the Formoso Project, an agricultural development in Goias, Brazil (Kissmann, 1997). In Florida, it is a dominant weed in the turf grass industry, and its presence increases production costs and lowers turf quality (Teuton et al., 2004). In the Pacific, it is cited as a weed of vegetables and lawns, important in Tonga, Samoa and Fiji (Waterhouse, 1997).

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Impact on Habitats

Very aggressive in humid areas and wetlands (Kissmann, 1997).

The species may be a threat in disturbed wetlands, riparian habitats, and dune systems by altering these ecosystems, displacing native species, or threatening local populations. In New Zealand, it may threaten native dune plants such as pingao (Desmochoenus spiralis), a plant of cultural importance to the Maori (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015).

Impact on Biodiversity

Because U. distachya is highly competitive and produces a large volume of biomass, the species reduces species diversity and the functional diversity of indigenous macrophytes. Its allelopathic components, resistance to long periods of drought, and high germination capacity in low light conditions increase its competitive ability. When it forms extensive mats it impacts the native diversity of plants and also of fishes (Mormul et al., 2010). 

Social Impact

Top of page

Commonly invasive along margins of lakes and multiple use reservoirs (energy generation, recreation, fishing, navigation). The presence of this species in water bodies generates water loss by transpiration, reduces water flow in canals, increases siltation, and generates higher maintenance costs (Tanaka, 1998; Oliveira and Constantin, 2001). It reduces water storage and shortens the usage of reservoirs by facilitating siltation (Pitelli, 1998).

The species can be considered of highest concern among aquatic weeds in Brazil (Mormul et al., 2010).

Because it is a weed in lawns, it has impact on amenity values (New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Has a broad native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Tolerant of shade
  • Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Reproduces asexually
Impact outcomes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Increases vulnerability to invasions
  • Modification of hydrology
  • Modification of natural benthic communities
  • Modification of successional patterns
  • Monoculture formation
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts tourism
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Soil accretion
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition - smothering
  • Rapid growth
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

The species is used as a forage grass for ruminants in coconut plantations where it is grazed by animals. This grass is very palatable when young, and the regrowth is of acceptable forage quality (1-2% N at 4-8 weeks) (Schultze-Kraft, 1992).

In tropical Asia and sporadically in other tropical countries it is cultivated in intercroppings, as soil cover in old coconut plantations, and as a palatable pasture grass. It is able to grow in half-shade and can increase coconut yield. It is a good soil-binder in sandy areas (Fritsch, 2001).

It is a good forage grass, well accepted by cattle, easy to reproduce, with high biomass yield (Kissmann, 1997). It is sometimes cultivated as a lawn grass in Asia (Fritsch, 2001), and as a shade-tolerant ground cover (Schultze-Kraft, 1992).

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

The species is similar to other species in the genus Urochloa, many of which are widely used and commercialized for forage; therefore, identification is not easy. As many species in the genus are invasive, it might be easier to consider the genus as a target.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

The species is very similar to U. piligera, from which it is distinguished by spikelet length and presence of a palea in the lower floret (Simon and Alfonso, 2011).

Some authors consider it a synonym of Urochloa mutica, as the species are very similar and often occur together. They can be distinguished by the inflorescences: while U. mutica has longer and more numerous racemes, with paired or branched lower panicles, U. distachya has smaller and less numerous racemes which do not branch out (Kissmann, 1997).

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.

Physical/Mechanical Control

If mechanical control leads to fragmentation of the plants, the invasion will worsen, as each fragment functions as a propagule that can produce a new plant (Mormul et al., 2010).

Chemical Control

Among the herbicides used to control this grass are glyphosate, diquat, copper-based endothal, fluridone, and imazapyr (Martins, 1998). Glyphosate has proved to be efficient, although part of the grasses resprouted after 37 days. Imazapyr was efficient, but slow, with good control after 75 days. Diquat application yielded much resprouting, so it was not considered efficient (Carbonari et al., 2003).

Pre-emergence herbicide field trials in Florida, USA, using benefin + oryzalin, imazapic, and oryzalin provided >75% control eight weeks after application. Greenhouse trials on immature plants using post-emergence herbicides Asulam and CGA 362622 resulted in >89% control, and trials with Imazaquin resulted in 98% control. These treatments were not effective once applied in the field (Teuton et al., 2004).

In Florida several pre and post emergence herbicides were tested. An integrated management program can reduce infestation in the long term. Preemergence application of benefin + oryzalin, benefin +trifluralin, dithiopyr, imazaquin, and oryzalin controlled the grass up to 8 weeks after application. Early postemergence application of asulam, metribuzin, or quinclorac resulted in moderate control when applied before the eight-leaf stage. Most selective post-emergence herbicides do not control mature populations (Teuton et al., 2005).

In Australia, pre-emergence application of MON 13200 (thiazopyr) resulted in acceptable levels of control in sugar cane crops, with good crop safety (Somervaille, 1993).

References

Top of page

African Plant Database, 2012. African Plant Database. Geneva and Pretoria, Switzerland and South Africa: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève and South African National Biodiversity Institute. http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/index.php?langue=an

Basappa GP; Muniyamma M; Chinnappa CC, 1987. An investigation of chromosome numbers in the genus Brachiaria (Poaceae: Paniceae) in relation to morphology and taxonomy. Canadian Journal of Botany, 65:2297-2309.

Carbonari CA; Martins D; Terra MA, 2003. Brachiaria subquadripara and B. mutica control with different post-emergence herbicides. (Controle de Brachiaria subquadripara e Brachiaria mutica através de diferentes herbicidas aplicados em pós-emergência.) Planta Daninha, 21(Special Edition):79-84.

Clayton WD; Vorontsova MS; Harman KT; Williamson H, 2006. GrassBase - The Online World Grass Flora. UK: The Board of Trustees, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://www.kew.org/data/grasses-db.html

CSIRO, 2010. Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants, 6th edition., Australia: CSIRO. http://keys.trin.org.au/key-server/data/0e0f0504-0103-430d-8004-060d07080d04/media/Html/index.html

FAO, 2015. Grassland species profiles. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/Gbase/Default.htm

Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015. Flora of China. St. Louis, Missouri and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden and Harvard University Herbaria. http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2

Fritsch R, 2001. Mansfeld's World Database of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops: Brachiaria subquadripara, de/apex/f?p=185. 46. http://mansfeld.ipk-gatersleben.de/apex/f?p=185:46:9003702257491::NO::module%2Cmf_use%2Csource%2Cakzanz%2Crehm%2Cakzname%2Ctaxid:mf%2C%2Cbotnam%2C0%2C%2CBrachiaria+subquadripara%2C34947

Gordon DR; Onderdonk DA; Fox AM; Stocker RK; Gantz C, 2008. Predicting invasive plants in Florida using the Australian weed risk assessment. Invasive Plant Science and Management, 1(2):178-195. http://www.wssa.net

Hatch SL, 2010. Urochloa subquadripara (Poaceae: Paniceae) new to Texas and a key to Urochloa of Texas. Phytoneuron, 8:1-4.

Hitchcock AS, 1929. Grasses of Canton and vicinity. Lingnan Scientific Journal, 7:177-265.

I3N Brasil, 2015. Invasives information network. Florianópolis - SC, Brazil: Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development. http://i3n.institutohorus.org.br

ITIS, 2015. Integrated Taxonomic Information System online database. http://www.itis.gov

JSTOR, 2015. JSTOR Global Plants. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: JSTOR. http://plants.jstor.org/

Kissmann K, 1997. Plantas infestantes e nocivas (Noxious and weedy plants). Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Lorence DH; Flynn TW; Wagner WL, 1995. Contributions to the flora of Hawai'i. III. New additions, range extensions, and rediscoveries of flowering plants. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers [Records of the Hawaii biological survey for 1994. Part 1: articles.], No. 41:19-58.

Martins D, 1998. Control of aquatic weeds. (Controle de plantas daninhas aquáticas.) In: Workshop controle de plantas aquáticas. Brasília, Brazil: IBAMA.

Mehra PN, 1982. Cytology of East Indian grasses. 240 pp.

Mormul RP; Thomaz SM; Higuti J; Martens K, 2010. Ostracod (Crustacea) colonization of a native and a non-native macrophyte species of Hydrocharitaceae in the Upper Paraná floodplain (Brazil): an experimental evaluation. Hydrobiologia, 644:185-193. http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-5117/

Morrone O; Zuloaga FO, 1992. A revision of the native and introduced South American species of Brachiaria (Trin.) Griseb. and Urochloa P. Beauv. (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae). (Revisión de las especies sudamericanas nátivas e introducidas de los géneros Brachiaria y Urochloa (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae).) Darwiniana, 31(1-4):43-109.

Nepal Checklist, 2014. Annotated Checklist of the Flowering Plants of Nepal. St. Louis, Missouri and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden and Harvard University Herbaria. http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=110

New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2015. Risk assessment for Brachiaria subquadripara. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/regs/imports/plants/coco-peat/ra-brachiaria-subquadripara.pdf

Oliveira JR; Constantin J, 2001. Plantas daninhas e seu manejo ([English title not available]). 362 pp.

PIER, 2015. Pacific Islands Ecosystems at Risk. Honolulu, USA: HEAR, University of Hawaii. http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html

Pitelli RA, 1998. Problem aquatic macrophytes in Brazil. (Macrófitas aquáticas no Brasil, na condição de problemáticas.) In: Workshop controle de plantas aquáticas. Brasília, Brazil: IBAMA, 12-15.

Plant Pono, 2015. Hawaii Plant Weed Risk Assessments. http://plantpono.org/hpwra-search.php

Pohl RW, 1980. Family 15. Gramineae. Fieldiana, Botany, 4:1-608. [Flora Costaricensis.]

Pohl RW; Davidse G, 1971. Chromosome numbers of Costa Rican grasses. Briitonia, 23(3):293-324.

PROTA, 2015. PROTA4U web database. Grubben GJH, Denton OA, eds. Wageningen, Netherlands: Plant Resources of Tropical Africa. http://www.prota4u.info

Reinheimer R; Vegetti AC, 2008. Inflorescence diversity and evolution in the PCK Clade (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae). Plant Systematics and Evolution, 275(3/4):133-167. http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=104878

Schultze-Kraft R, 1992. Brachiaria subquadripara (Trin.) Hitchc. Record from Proseabase [ed. by t'Mannetje, L. \Jones, R. M.]. Bogor, Indonesia: PROSEA (Plant Resources of South-East Asia) Foundation. http://proseanet.org/prosea/e-prosea_detail.php?frt=e&id=1848

Simon BK; Alfonso Y, 2011. AusGrass2. Grasses of Australia. Australia: CSIRO Publishing. http://ausgrass2.myspecies.info/

Smith LB; Wasshausen DC; Klein RM, 1982. Gramíneas I (Grasses I). Itajai, Brazil: Flora Ilustrada Catarinense, 79 pp.

Somervaille AJ, 1993. MON 13200 - a new pre-emergent herbicide for weed control in sugar cane. In: Proceedings II of the 10th Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 6-10 September, 1993 [ed. by Wilson, B. J.\Swarbrick, J. T.]. Queensland, Australia: Queensland Weed Society, 12-17.

Soreng RJ; Davidse G; Peterson PM; Zuloaga FO; Judziewicz EJ; Filgueiras TS; Morrone ON, 2012. Catalogue of New World Grasses (Poaceae). http://www.tropicos.org/project/cnw

Tanaka RH, 1998. Damage by aquatic plants. (Prejuízos provocados pelas plantas aquáticas.) In: Workshop controle de plantas aquáticas. Brasília, Brazil: IBAMA, 36-38.

Teuton TC; Main CL; Mueller TC; Wilkerson JB; Brecke BJ; Unruh JB, 2005. Prediction modeling for tropical signalgrass (Urochloa subquadripara) emergence in Florida. Applied Turfgrass Science, April:1-3. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/ats/

Teuton TC; Unruh JB; Brecke BJ; MacDonald GE; Miller GL; Ducar JT, 2004. Tropical signalgrass (Urochloa subquadripara) control with preemergence- and postemergence-applied herbicides. Weed Technology, 18(2):419-425.

The Plant List, 2013. The Plant List: a working list of all plant species. Version 1.1. London, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. http://www.theplantlist.org

USDA-ARS, 2015. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx

USDA-NRCS, 2015. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Veldkamp JF, 1996. Brachiaria, Urochloa (Gramineae-Paniceae) in Malesia. Blumea, 41(2):413-437.

Waterhouse DF, 1997. The major invertebrate pests and weeds of agriculture and plantation forestry in the southern and western Pacific. Canberra, Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. 93 pp. [ACIAR Monograph No. 44].

Wunderlin RP; Hansen BF, 2008. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. Florida, USA: University of South Florida. http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/

Zuloaga FO; Morrone O, 2003. Brachiaria, Urochloa. Contributions of the US National Herbarium, 46:141-143, 629-634. [Catalogue of New World Grasses (Poaceae): III. Subfamilies Panicoideae, Aristidoideae, Arundionoideae, and Danthonioideae.]

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
African Plant Databasehttp://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/
The Horus Institute, Brazilhttp://www.institutohorus.org.br

Contributors

Top of page

27/05/15 Original text by:

Dr Silvia Ziller, Society for Wildlife Research and Environmental Education, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map