Biology and Management of

Invasive Terrestrial Weed Species of Trinidad

Dr. Puran Bridgemohan Ph.D

Kimberly Singh MSc.

Renaldo Lewis MSc.

November 2015
Preface
Invasive Weed Species possess the potential to devastate and spread rampantly through fields,
plantations, agricultural plots and domestic gardens and also pose health problems to both
humans and animals. The need to identify and control these species is very evident, influencing
the genesis of this publication.

“Biology and Management of Invasive Terrestrial Weed Species of Trinidad” is a manual which
contains detailed biological descriptions of the major characteristics of the some weed species
found in Trinidad. Suggested methods of management are also included in the descriptor to aid
in control of the invasive weed.

A principle component of the manual is the photographs, both in field and in laboratory, of each
weed species. The whole plant, root systems, leaves, flowers and seeds are captured in order to
assist in the proper and accurate identification of each weed.

The invasiveness of each weed has been ranked according to the “Invasive Species Assessment
Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity”, which was developed
by L.E. Morse, J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert and S. Lu of Arlington, Virginia.

The authors wish to thank all the personnel that assisted in the preparation of this Manual. In
particular, special thanks go to Pooran Jaikaran and Lakeraj Balroop, who made great efforts in
sourcing weed specimens for observation and photography.

This project was funded by CABI / GEF through The University of Trinidad and Tobago and
was facilitated by the University’s Waterloo Research Campus, Waterloo Estates, Waterloo
Road, Carapichaima.

Dr. Puran Bridgemohan

Associate Professor [ Weed Scientist ] , The University of Trinidad and Tobago

Kimberly Singh
Environmental Analyst/Research Technician, The University of Trinidad and Tobago

Renaldo Lewis
Environmental Analyst/Research Technician, The University of Trinidad and Tobago
December 2015

i
Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... i
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Approach ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 1: Invasiveness ........................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2: Weed Biology ........................................................................................................................ 6
Weed Propagation Methods ................................................................................................................. 6
Weed Dispersal Mechanisms ............................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3: Impacts of Invasive Weed Species .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 4: Allelopathy........................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 5: Management of Invasive Weeds ........................................................................................... 11
Biological Survey .................................................................................................................................. 12
Axonopus Compressus - Savannah Grass ........................................................................................... 13
Brachiaria mutica - Paragrass ............................................................................................................ 16
Commelina diffusa - Watergrass ........................................................................................................ 19
Cyperus rotundas - Nut Grass ............................................................................................................ 22
Echinocjloa colonum- Jungle Rice ..................................................................................................... 25
Eleusine indica - Fowl Foot ............................................................................................................... 28
Parthenium hysterophorus - Whitetop ............................................................................................... 31
Paspalum conjugatum - Buffalo Grass ............................................................................................... 34
Paspalum fasciculatum - Bamboo Grass ............................................................................................ 37
Rottboellia cochinchinensis - Corn Grass ........................................................................................... 40
Setaria poiretiana - Gamalot ............................................................................................................. 43
Sporobolus indicus - Tapia Grass ....................................................................................................... 45
Urochloa fusca - Birdseed-grass ........................................................................................................ 48
Urochloa maxima - Guinea Grass ...................................................................................................... 50
Summary Table of I-Rank Invasiveness ................................................................................................. 53
References............................................................................................................................................. 54
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 56
Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 59
Objectives

The objectives of the manual titled “Biology and Management of Invasive Terrestrial Weed
Species of Trinidad” are as follows:

 To provide a biological description of important invasive weeds throughout Trinidad

 To provide visual aids to assist in the identification of invasive weed species
 To rank the invasiveness of weed species in Trinidad to allow for prioritization of
management efforts
 To provide information on the management options available to treat with invasive weed
species

2
Approach

The tool used to assess invasiveness in this manual is referred to as the “Invasive Species
Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for their Impact on Biodiversity”, which
was developed by L.E. Morse, J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert and S. Lu of Arlington,
Virginia (see Appendix 1). The invasiveness of the identified weed species was assessed using
twenty (20) assessment questions which are grouped into four sections, describing their
ecological impact, both trends and current distribution and abundance and management
difficulty.

In all cases, each question was scored on a scale of “A” to “D” with “A” indicating the greatest
negative effect on native species and natural biodiversity followed by B, C and D answers,
corresponding respectively to lesser degrees of impact. For each question, an attempt was made
to select one precise answer (single-letter answer) that best characterized the species being
assessed.

Numerical values were pre-assigned to the letter answers for each of the 20 questions. Within
each of the four sections, the letter answers chosen were equated to their corresponding
numerical values and tallied to determine the “sub-rank” value (see Table 1) of the section. The
“sub-rank” value was used to rank each section in terms of its significance as high, medium, low
or insignificant.

The significance of the sub-rank values were then equated to pre-assigned numerical values (see
Table 2) which were used to determine the “I-Rank” of the species being assessed. The “I-Rank”
categorizes the species’ negative impact on natural biodiversity within the region as high,
medium, low or insignificant. Finally a text comment summarizing the key information
underlying the species’ sub-ranks and its I-Rank was used to describe it invasiveness.

Table 1: Sub-Rank Intervals

Sub-section Sub-rank Interval

I. Ecological Impact 78 -102 High

52 – 77 Medium
27 – 51 Low
0 – 26 Insignificant

II. Current Distribution and Abundance 28 - 36 High

19 – 27 Medium

3
 10 – 18 Low
0 – 9 Insignificant

III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance 55 -72 High

37 – 54 Medium
19 – 36 Low
0 – 18 Insignificant

IV. Management Difficulty 39 - 51 High

27 – 38 Medium
14 – 26 Low
0 – 13 Insignificant

Table 2: I-Rank Significance

I – Rank Interval Significance

76 – 100 High

51 – 75 Medium

26 – 50 Low

0 - 25 Insignificant

All weeds were sourced in the field and photos were taken in-field and in the laboratory to depict
the whole plant, seeds, flowers and root system. All photos were captured by Kimberly Singh
and Renaldo Lewis.

4
Chapter 1: Invasiveness
Species which are considered to be invasive are usually non-native, abundant and known or
suspected to cause significant reductions in native species populations, severe alterations of
native ecological communities, or significant changes in ecosystem processes and parameters
(Randall et.al, 2008). The National Invasive Species Management Plan 2001defines invasive
species as “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose
introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health.”

Characteristics of invasive plants

Successful invasive plants often share a few traits that allow them to out-compete indigenous
plants. Invasive plants may have any of the following characteristics (Gould 2000, Mehrhoff
1998):

 Rapid growth allows invasive exotics to take advantage of uninhabited patches of the
landscape.

 Early maturity allows a plant to produce seed, and thus invade areas, at a young age

 Production of large quantities of seeds and fruit for a large number of offspring which
can establish in un-colonized areas.

 Effective seed dispersal methods help invasive plants spread over wide ranges.

 Some species do not need to be pollinated because they spread through vegetative
reproduction wherein new plants sprout from roots or stems of the parent plant.

 Utilization of local pollinators so that they can produce seed in foreign environments.

 Different phenology to native plants means that they can often leaf out earlier, stay green
longer, or bloom at an earlier or later time of year.

 Generation of dense shade is a trait of invasive plants that allows them to reduce
competition by reducing available light to undergrowth. Dense root mass also allows
invasive plants to become dominant by preventing other plants from establishing roots.

 Allelopathy which is the production of chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants.

 Pest-free because they have managed to migrate to a new environment without the
natural predators from their home environment.
Ecologists are continuing to develop characteristics of invasive plants. No set of characteristics
covers all invasive plants and no one plant has all of the characteristics. The following manual
serves to identify and describe invasive weed species found in Trinidad. The Invasive Species
Assessment Protocol (Randall et.al, 2008) acts as the cornerstone of the manual as it was used to
rank the invasiveness of the weed species examined. It is critical that we be able to determine
which species are causing significant biodiversity impacts so we can prioritize the most harmful
species for prevention and management to protect ecological communities.

5
Chapter 2: Weed Biology
Weeds are recognized worldwide as an undesirable, economic pest, especially in agriculture. A
common and acceptable explanation for a weed is a plant growing where it is not wanted. Weeds
can also be defined as plants with the potential to establish, proliferate, spread and cause broadly
defined detrimental consequences in the ecosystems which they are established.

Weeds can be placed into three main groups based on the classification of weeds by Life History:
1. Annuals: An annual plant completes its life cycle from seed to seed in one year or less.
2. Biennials: Biennials usually emerge and survives the first year in a rosette stage, produce
seeds and die in the second growing season.
3. Perennials: Perennial plants live for longer than two years and may reproduce several
times before dying. These plants are characterized by renewed vegetative growth year
after year from the same root system.

The following table provides taxonomies of characteristics that are used to describe weeds.

Table 1: Descriptive Characteristics of Weeds

Anthropogenic Characteristics Biological Characteristics

 Germination requirements fulfilled in many  Growing in an undesirable
environments location
 Discontinuous germination and great longevity of  Competitive and aggressive
seeds behavior
 Rapid growth through vegetative phases to flowering  Persistence and resistance to
 Continuous seed production, for as long as growing control
conditions permit  Appearing without being
 Cross-pollination by a wide variety of agents or wind sown or cultivated
 Adaptations for short and long distance dispersal  Unsightly
 If perennial, vigourous vegetative reproduction or
regeneration from fragments
 Ability to out compete other plants by special means
(rosettes, choking growth, allelochemicals)

Weed Propagation Methods

The basic objective of plant propagation is to produce offspring that will be exactly similar to the
original plant. Whether by vegetative methods or sexual breeding, the aim of propagation is to
transfer all desirable characteristics of the mother plant to its offspring.

The result of sexual propagation are seeds whereas asexual / vegetative propagation can take
many different forms which include budding, division and suckers. Weeds reproduce by
forming:

6
  Seed: a seed is a mature ovule. Weeds produced by seedlings, generally live longer, bear
more heavily and are hardier than asexually propagated weeds.
 Tubers: tubers are thickened portions of rhizomes or roots, serving for food storage and
also for propagation. Growth arises from buds at the top (crown) of the root mass.
 Corms: A corm is a short, vertical, swollen underground plant stem that serves as a
storage organ to survive winter or summer drought and heat. A corm has one or more
internodes with at least one growing bud, surrounded by protective papery skins or
tunics.
 Rhizomes: these are underground stems that can emit roots from the lower side and leafy
stems from the upper side.
 Bulbs: A bulb is a short underground vertical shoot that has thickened leaves used as food
storage organs by a dormant monocot plant. A modified stem forms the base of the bulb,
and plant growth occurs from this basal plate. Roots emerge from the underside of the
base, and new stems and leaves from the upper side.
 Stolons / Runners: are aboveground stems that grow horizontally and take root at the
nodes to develop new plants.

Weed Dispersal Mechanisms

Dispersal mechanisms refer to the methods used to facilitate the movement or transport of
propagules away from the parent plant. Plants have limited mobility and consequently rely upon
a variety of dispersal vectors to transport their seeds, including both abiotic and biotic vectors.
The seeds of weeds are primarily dispersed by the following mechanisms:

 Gravity dispersal: seeds fall off and roll away from the parent weed.
 Wind dispersal: the seeds produced by weeds are almost weightless and this enables them
to be carried long distances by the slightest breeze. The seeds are often covered with hairs
that assist in catching the wind.
 Water / Buoyancy dispersal: weeds which make use of this mechanism produce light
seeds which float, or there may be fluff that helps buoyancy.
 Animal dispersal: the seeds of such weeds are either eaten by animals and deposited in
their dropping or snag onto their hides and eventual drop off during transport or
grooming.
 Human dispersal: some weeds have adaptive features which allow them to easily snag
onto clothing while the seeds of others get trapped in the sole of boots and thereby
transported from site to site when eventually knocked off.
 Machinery dispersal: the movement of agricultural equipment and machinery from one
field to another serves as an ideal vector for weed dispersal especially if proper cleaning
and bio-security protocols are not followed.

7
Chapter 3: Impacts of Invasive Weed Species

According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Executive Order 13112, an
invasive species is defined as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause
economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” Invasive species, including those
that are terrestrial, are known to have phenomenal impacts on different aspects of society. Some
of these impacts are as follows:

Human Health

 Respiratory infections which lead to increased medical costs and decreased productivity
due to absence from work
 Poisonous plants have been reported to cause inflammation of muscles, fevers/chills,
chest pains, shortness and breath, among other symptoms. This may lead to
hospitalization, medical expense and lost productivity due to absence from work.

Recreational Opportunities and other Human Values

 Decreased property values

 Altered business opportunities
 Altered ecosystem and recreational opportunities

Natural Resources / Ecological

 Declines in biodiversity, wildlife habitat and timber production

 Decreased soil stabilization and interrupted forest succession
 Changes in wildlife frequency and intensity
 Excessive use of resources and suppression of native plants
 Alteration of entire ecosystems and their functions through toxic and parasitic properties,
competition for resources
 Increased risks to endangered and threatened species
 Displacement of native plants that wildlife and fish depend on for food
 Increases in soil erosion and major damage to streams and other wetland areas that
provide habitat for native fish, plants, and animals
 Increases in the frequency and risk of wildfires
 Reduction of agricultural production/yields and property values

8
Economical

 Direct costs due to production loss in agriculture and forestry, and management costs.
 Losses through recreational and tourism revenues.
 Medical costs
 Costs associated with the loss of productivity at work.

9
Chapter 4: Allelopathy

The term allelopathy was coined by plant physiologist, Professor Hans Molisch, in 1937 via the
combination of the Greek words ‘allelon’ meaning ‘each other’ and ‘pathos’ meaning ‘suffering’
(Bhadoria, 2010). Allelopathy can be defined as the effect(s) of one plant on other plants through
the release of chemical compounds in the environment (Rice, 1984). The International
Allelopathy Society in 1996 broadened its definition to refer to any process involving secondary
metabolites produced by plants, microorganisms, viruses and fungi that influence the growth and
development of agricultural and biological systems.
Chemicals that impose allelopathic influences are called allelochemicals or allelochemics. The
readily visible effects of allelochemicals on the growth and development of plants include
inhibited or retarded germination rate; darkened and swollen seeds; reduced root or radicle and
shoot or coleoptile extension; swelling or necrosis of root tips; curling of the root axis;
discoloration, lack of root hairs; increased number of seminal roots; reduced dry weight
accumulation; and lowered reproductive capacity (Bhadoria, 2010).
In order to have any effect on the target plant the allelochemicals have to be released from the
donor plant. This can happen in different ways:
 Runoff and leachate from leaves and stem of plants
 Volatile phytotoxic compounds from the green parts of a plant
 Phytotoxic compounds from decomposing plant material, such as rye (Secale cereale)
when used as a mulching material
 Phytotoxic compounds released from the plant roots
Many weeds are now achieving importance as an agent of weed control for having special types
of allelochemicals (Bhadoria, 2010). These allelochemicals are capable of suppressing
germination and growth of several other weeds, some of which are resistant to herbicides. There
are however many limitations in using allelopathy as a weed management tool. Various abiotic
and biotic factors, such as plant age, temperature, light and soil conditions, microflora,
nutritional status, and herbicide treatments influence the production and release of
allelochemicals. (Duke, 1985; Hoagland and Williams, 1985).

10
Chapter 5: Management of Invasive Weeds

Weed management varies according to plant life cycles, infestation size, environmental
parameters and management objectives. Successful weed management requires proper plant
identification, selection of effective management methods and monitoring the effects over time.
Several methods exist for the control of invasives:

 Chemical Control
Chemical control involves the use of herbicides, which can oftentimes provide the most
effective and time-efficient method of managing weeds. Herbicides control weed plants
either by speeding up, stopping or changing the plant's normal growth patterns; by
desiccating (drying out) the leaves or stems; or by defoliating the plant (making it drop its
leaves). A table listing common herbicides and their properties is attached in Appendix 2 of
this manual.

 Mechanical Control
Mechanical control consists of methods, usually employing powered tools and machinery, to
kill or suppress weeds through physical disruption. Such methods include pulling, slashing,
felling, digging, disking, plowing and mowing. Success of various mechanical control
methods is dependent on the life cycle of the target weed species. However, care should be
taken to avoid disturbing the soil or spreading weed seeds from machinery used in the
process. Disturbing the soil can increase the likelihood of weed seed germination. Native
vegetation may also be damaged in the course of mechanical control.

 Biological Control
Biological control involves the use of living agents to suppress vigor, size, competitiveness,
health and the spread of weeds. Bio-control agents can be insects, bacteria, fungi, or grazing
animals such as sheep, goats, cattle or horses. These agents are usually from the same
country of origin as the weed species. When using biological controls, strict measures are to
be employed to ensure that these agents do not negatively affect native plants and animals or
crops. In reality, insect bio-control cannot completely eradicate a weed species but can
significantly limit distribution, density and abundance of the target weed species to a level
that is no longer considered detrimental to the desired plant community. Hence, biological
control works best in conjunction with other control methods.

 Manual Control
Manual control is the use of the hands or handheld tools to deal with weeds. An advantage of
manual control is that it minimizes soil disturbance, and decreases the likelihood of erosion
and weed seed germination. It includes controls such as hand pulling to remove the entire
weed including its roots from the soil and grubbing or chipping which requires weeds to be
dug out using a mattock or chip hoe.

11
Biological Survey

Weeds

12
Axonopus Compressus - Savannah Grass
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Gramineae Axonopus compressus (Sw.) P.B. Savannah grass, Broadleaf carpetgrass, Flat
jointgrass,
DESCRIPTION
A creeping perennial with flattened rather hairless shoots up 30cm tall. Leaf blades usually 5-20 cm long and about
1cm wide, bright green with a crinkled hairy margin and the tip narrowly rounded.
Life Form □ annual □ tufted stoloniferous spreading perennial rhizomatous
Culm 15-50cm tall □ erect branching geniculate rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 8-14 (-25) cm long 6-8 (-12) mm wide } 10-20 x as long as wide
linear lanceolate
Ligule 0.3-0.5mm □ hairy ring membranous truncate fringed
Inflorescence
Description: 1 or 2 peduncles, excreting from the final sheath each composed of 2-5 ascending racemes each 4-8 (-
13) cm long
main axis straight
branch-axis small
Spikelets 1 – flower
2.2 -2.8 (-3.5)mm long ~ 1mm wide} ~ 2.5 x as long as wide
□ binate solitary □ sessile □ ternate sub-sessile

Glumes g1 absent
g2 equalling the spikelet
Lemmas l1 ± equalling the spikelet
Hairiness
Culm nodes
Leaf upper side □ underside margin mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector
Externally by other animals □ Internally by other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Successfully and quickly invades pastures and outcompetes other species
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops □ Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
□ Chemical
Biological: Grass webworm (Herpetogramma licarsisalis, Lepidoptera, pyralidae)

13
Scientific Name: Axonopus Compressus Common Name: Savannah Grass

Whole Plant – In Field Whole Plant – In Laboratory

Seeds on Plant Rooting System

Seeds- In Laboratory

14
 Scientific name: Axonopus compressus Common name: Savannah grass
A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide Parameters 0 12
Insig
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
.
I. Ecological Impact on Ecological Community Composition 6
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species (negative impacts) 0
Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species 0
Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 0 2
Insig.
II. Current Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively Impacting 0
Distribution Biodiversity
And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 1
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Region 1
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 10
Insig.
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 1
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 3
III. Trend in
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance 0
Distribution
and Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species 0
Abundance
Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 0
Reproductive Characteristics 0
General Management Difficulty 6 12
IV. Insig.
Minimum Time Commitment 5
Management
Difficulty Impacts of Management on Native Species 0
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-

Section Points
High Medium Low Insignificant Rank
I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 0 76 – 100 High 0
II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 0 Insig.
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 0
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 0
0 – 25 Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Axonopus compressus or Savannah grass has no perceivable impact on abiotic
ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters; however it can moderately change density of the
ecological community structure. It is currently present in a few (less than 20%) bio-geographic units
within a small number (2 – 3) of habitats. Its range is stable since long-distance dispersal is rare. The
management of Savannah grass is relatively easy and inexpensive. Control is required for 2 – 5 years.
The invasiveness of Axonopus compressus is ranked “Insignificant”.

15
Brachiaria mutica - Paragrass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Gramineae Brachiaria mutica Paragrass, Mauritious grass, Scotch grass

DESCRIPTION
A perennial grass with thick, decumbent clums producing ascending or erecting secondary culms
Life Form □ annual perennial □ tufted spreading stoloniferous, up to 4m long
□ rhizomatous
Culm 100 – 200 cm tall erect □branching geniculate rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 10-30 cm long 5-20 mm wide linear lanceolate
Ligule 1-1.5mm long □ hairy ring membranous □ truncate fringed
Inflorescence
Description: 12 – 20 cm long; composed of 9-20 branches; each 5-20 cm long
branch-axis winged, 1mm wide, villosulous at the base
Spikelets 3-5 mm long 1.5-2 mm wide } 2 – 2.5 x as long as wide
□ solitary □ sessile binate subsessile □ ternate pedicelled
Glumes g1 up to 1/3 x as long as the spikelet, 3-5-nerved
g2 equally the spikelet, 5-7-nerved
Lemmas l1 ~ g2, 5-nerved
l2 crustaceous
Hairiness
Culm nodes
Leaf □ upper side □ underside □ margin mouth only
Sheath on lower leaves sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis branched-axis
Spikelets □ with short hair/bearded callus pedicel
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally
by other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation
or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Forms dense monocultural stands deteriorating the growth of neighbouring plants
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland Aquatic biotopes
Only on moist places; common in ditches, swamps and along riverbanks
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
Mechanical: Repeated and aggressive tillage
Chemical: Herbicides; disadvantage: causes non-target damage
Biological: Cattle grazing

16
Scientific Name: Brachiaria mutica Common Name: Paragrass

Whole plant – In Field Seeds – On Plant

Seeds

Rooting System

17
 Scientific name: Brachiaria mutica Common name: Paragrass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System- 15 41
Wide Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 6
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal 6
Species [negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities 8
and Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 12
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 5 Low
Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
II. Current Distribution
And Abundance
Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units 1
Invaded
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems 1
Invaded in Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 31
Proportion of Potential Range Currently 2 Low
Occupied
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within 3
III. Trend in Distribution Region
and Abundance Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance 6
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas 2
and Other Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 12 33
Minimum Time Commitment 10 Med
IV. Management Difficulty
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-

Section Points
High Medium Low Insignificant Rank
I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 37
II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 8 Low
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution 15 10 5 0 5
and Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25 Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Brachiaria mutica or Paragrass has medium to high significance in terms of its
alteration to abiotic ecosystem process and system-wide parameters. It is currently wide-spread,
occupying greater than 30% of the region in which it is found. However, it generally invades a single
habitat or ecological system. The range of Paragrass is stable with long-distance dispersal rare in
occurrence. Its reproductive characteristics are moderately aggressive exhibiting quickly spreading
rhizomes. Management of Paragrass requires major short-term or moderate long-term investment which
may cause a moderate impact on the persistence of native species.
The invasiveness of Brachiaria mutica has been ranked “Low”.

18
Commelina diffusa - Watergrass
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa Watergrass; Climbing dayflower; Spreading dayflower
DESCRIPTION
Succulent creeping herb with trailing stems several meters long
Life Form annual □ tufted □ stoloniferous spreading perennial □
rhizomatous
Stem up to 100cm long □ erect branching creeping rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 1.5 - 8cm long 0.5 – 2 cm wide
□ linear lanceolate ovate

Inflorescence
Description: upper cyme with 1 to several flowers; lower cyme with several flowers

Flowers opening in the morning

□ actinomorphic □ sessile zygomorphic □ subsessile pedicelled
Perinath compoased of 2 whorls
sepals 3;1 free, green
lower 2 united at base
petals 3 free, blue, the lower much reduced
□ united
stamens 6 (or 5); 3 fertile and 3 (or 2) sterile
filaments glabrous
□ hairy
pistil of 3 carpels
ovary 3-celled, 5-ovulate
Fruit a 3-celled capsule, 5-seeded, 4-5 mm long
Seeds dark brown, reticulate, 2-2.5 (-3) mm long
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms Cuttings Seeds □ Sods Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by other animals

INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Forms carpet in wet pastures/natural areas, displace grasses in pastures and native plants in humid forests/wetlands
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
Chemical: bentazone, molinate, oxyfluorfen, bifenox
□ Biological

19
Scientific Name: Commelina diffusa Common Name: Watergrass

Whole Plant – In Field Whole Plant – In Laboratory

Flower – On Plant

Rooting System
20
 Scientific name: Commelina diffusa Common name: Water-grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 15 50
Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 12
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 8
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 5
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 10
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 8 19
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 8 Med
II. Current
Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 1
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 8 26
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 1 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 3
III. Trend in 3
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Abundance Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and 2
Other Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 3
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 10 24
IV. Management Low
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 3
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank I-

Section Points
High Medium Low Insignificant Intervals Rank
I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 37
II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 8 Low
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 5
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Commelina diffusa or Watergrass significantly alters ecosystem processes and influences
ecological community composition. It currently occupies a substantial part of the region, between 10 - 30%,
negatively impacting 20 – 50% of the species within the area. It has moderately aggressive reproductive
characteristics. The management of watergrass requires a major short-term or a moderate long-term investment
which will have moderate impacts on native species.
The invasiveness of Commelina diffusa had been ranked as “Low”.

21
Cyperus rotundas - Nut Grass
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Cyperaceae Cyperus rotundus L. Nut Grass
DESCRIPTION
A perennial herb with thin rhizomes bearing tubers in series
Life Form □ annual perennial □ tufted spreading □ stoloniferous rhizomatous
Stem 10 – 70 cm Tall Base thickened 1 – 2 mm Wide □ Base not thickened
Leaf Blade □ Reduced Well developed
5 – 20 cm Long 3 – 6 mm Wide
Sheath Sometimes fibrous
Inflorescence
Description: A simple umbel, up to 15 x 10 cm Involucral bracts: 3 – 6, obliquely patent, up to 30cm long
Primary rays 3 – 8, unequal, 3 – 10 cm long Secondary rays
Spikelets 10 – 40 flowered
10 - 40 mm Long □ All flowers strictly unisexual
1 – 2 mm Wide Bisexual flowers present
Flattened □ Rounded Sessile □ Subsessile □
Pedicelled
Rhachilla Persistent, broadly winged □ Deciduous
Glumes □ Spirally arranged Distichous, 3 – 3.5 mm long, 5 – 7
nerved, keeled, keel green, sides purplish-brown
Perianth Absent □ Present
Stamens 3
Style □ Dilated at the base Not dilated at the base 3-
branched
Nut □ Crowned by the persistent style-base
Not crowned by the persistent style-base
Trigonous, 1.5 mm long □ Biconvex
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root Bulb Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
Wind Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by other
animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs Parasitic Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or
fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
The roots of Cyperus rotundus release substances that are harmful to other plants
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual □ Mechanical
Chemical: fumigants; herbicides □ Biological
The difficulty in controlling its spread is due to the intensive system of underground tubers and its resistance to
most herbicides. In addition, tubers can survive very harsh conditions.

22
Scientific Name: Cyperus rotundas Common Name: Nut Grass

Whole Plant – In Field Whole Plant – In Laboratory

Rooting System Seeds

23
 Scientific name: Cyperus rotundus Common name: Nut-grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 11 45
Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
I. Ecological 6
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 6
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native 16
Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 19
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 10 Med
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 35
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 1 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 3
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 4
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 9
General Management Difficulty 18 35
IV. Management Minimum Time Commitment 5 Med
Difficulty 10
Impacts of Management on Native Species
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Rank
I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 46
II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 17 Low
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 5
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Cyperus rotundus or Nutgrass influences the abiotic ecosystem processes and
moderately influences the structure and ecological community composition in the region. It currently
occupies a small part of the region between 0.1 – 10%, negatively impacting 20 – 50% of the species
within the area. It has extremely aggressive reproductive characteristics. The management of Nutgrass
requires a major long-term investment, which would have moderate impacts on native species.
The invasiveness of Cyperus rotundus has been ranked as “Low”.

24
Echinocjloa colonum- Jungle Rice
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Gramineae Echinochloa colonum Jungle rice, Shama millet, birds rice, swamp-grass
DESCRIPTION
A semi-postrate, but ascending, much branched annual grass.
Life Form annual tufted □ spreading □ perennial
Culm 30 - 60 cm tall erect □branching geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 10 - 15cm long 3 – 8 mm wide linear □ lanceolate
Ligule Absent
Inflorescence
Description: 5 – 15 cm long, composed of 3 – 10 false spines; each 1 - 2 cm long
branch-axis Small
Spikelets Inconspicuously pubescent with fine short hairs
1- 3 mm long; 1 - 1.5 mm wide} 20 - 30 x as long as wide
□ sessile subsessile □ pedicelled
Glumes g1 half as long as the spikelet
g2 equalling the spikelet
Lemmas l1 similar to g2
l2 equalling the spikelet, shiny
Hairiness
Culm nodes
Leaf □ upper side □ underside □ margin mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves □ sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis □ branched-axis
Spikelets with short hair/bearded callus □ pedicel
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by other
animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Grows higher above other plants and competes with them for sunlight
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop □ Grassland Aquatic biotopes (Rice Fields)
MANAGEMENT
Control
Manual: Hand weeding or use of a hoe during early stages of the weed
□ Mechanical
□ Chemical
□ Biological

25
Scientific Name: Echinocjloa colonum Common Name: Jungle Rice

Rooting System

Whole Plant – In Field

Seeds – On Plant

Whole plant – In Laboratory Seeds

26
 Scientific name: Echinochloa colonum Common name: Jungle Rice

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 22 60
Parameters Med
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 12
I. Ecological 12
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 6
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 8
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 14
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 5 Low
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 12 42
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Med
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 8
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 2
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 18 40
IV. Management High
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 10
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 33 76 – 100 High 61

II. Current Distribution and Abundance 25 17 8 0 8 Med
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 10 51 – 75 Medium
Abundance
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 10 26 – 50 Low

0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Echinochloa colonum or Jungle Rice causes significant alteration to ecosystem
processes and system-wide parameters in the areas in which it inhabits. With regard to current
distribution and abundance, this species had a small range size of 0.1 – 10% of the region and this range
size impacts negatively on 5 – 20% of biodiversity. Jungle Rice has the potential for frequent long-
distance dispersal. Once an established stand, Jungle Rice required a major, long-term investment for its
management or it may not even be possible to manage with available technology.
The invasiveness of Echinochloa colonum has been ranked “Medium”.

27
Eleusine indica - Fowl Foot
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Gramineae Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. Fowl foot, Iron, Yard, Goose Grass
DESCRIPTION
An annual tufted grass, erect or sometimes decumbent at the base.
Life Form annual tufted stoloniferous spreading □ perennial □ rhizomatous
Culm 35 – 90 cm tall erect branching geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 5 – 30 cm long 3 – 8 mm wide } 20 - 40 x as long as wide
linear □ lanceolate
Ligule 0.6 – 1 mm □ hairy ring membranous □ truncate fringed
Sheath compressed
Inflorescence
Description: Composed of 3 – 10 subdigitately arranged spikes; each 4 – 15 cm long, ±5 mm wide
main axis
Spikelets with 3 – 9 fertile flowers
3 – 6 mm long sessile □ subsessile □ pedicelled
Disarticulation above the glumes and between the florets □ below the glumes
Glumes winged on the kneel, g1 1 – 2 mm long, 1 – nerved; g2 3 – 4.7 mm long,
3 – 7 - nerved, acute
Lemmas ~ g2 awnless
Grain oblong
Hairiness
Culm □ nodes
Leaf upper side □ underside □ margin mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals Internally by other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Under certain conditions, produces hydrogen cyanide
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual Mechanical: tillage
Chemical: herbicides □ Biological

28
Scientific Name: Eleusine indica Common Name: Fowl Foot

Whole Plant – In Field Whole Plant – In Laboratory

Rooting System Seeds – On Plant

Seeds – In Laboratory

29
 Scientific name: Eleusine indica Common name: Fowl foot

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 22 59
Parameters Med
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 12
I. Ecological 6
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 3
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 16
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 14
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 5 Low
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 12 62
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 High
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 9
III. Trend in 18
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 6
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 9
General Management Difficulty 6 23
IV. Management Low
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Sub-rank Values I-Rank I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Intervals

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 33 76 – 100 High 59

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 8 Medium
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 15
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 3
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Eleusine indica or Goose Grass causes significant alteration to ecosystem processes
and system-wide parameters, substantially changing the density or total area of coverage. Its range size is
small within the region, however present in many bio-geographic units. Its range is capable of increasing
by 10 – 30% if not prevented from spreading. The management of this species is relatively easy and
inexpensive, causing moderate impacts on native species.
The invasiveness of Eleusine indica has been ranked “Medium”.

30
Parthenium hysterophorus - Whitetop

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Asteraceae Parthenium hysterophorus Whitetop, White Weed
DESCRIPTION
It is a fast-maturing annual herbaceous plant with a deep taproot and an erect stem that becomes woody with age

Life Form annual □ tufted □ stoloniferous □ spreading □ perennial □

rhizomatous
Culm 30 - 75cm tall □ erect branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 8-20 cm long 4-8 cm wide Lobed □ linear □ lanceolate

Inflorescence
Description: A loose terminal panicle of flattish, 5-angled flower heads
Flowers are white, 4mm across and produce four or five black wedge shaped seeds that are 2 mm long
with thin white scales.

Hairiness
Culm □ nodes
Leaf upper side underside □ margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves □ sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis branched-axis

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Cor s □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
Wind Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector Machi ery
Externally by other animals □ Internally by other animals

INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs Parasitic Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Water soluble phenolics and sesquiterpene lactones occur in all parts of the plant and significantly inhibit the
germination and subsequent growth of a wide variety of crops
HABITAT
Waste places □ Rotation crops □ Perennial crop □ Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
Chemical
Biological

31
Scientific Name: Parthenium hysterophorus Common Name: Whitetop

Rooting System

Whole Plant – In Field

Flowers – On Plant

Whole Plant - In Laboratory Seeds

32
 Scientific name: Parthenium hysterophorus Common name: White Top

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide Parameters 33
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 18
I. Ecological
Impact on Ecological Community Composition 18 99
Impact Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 6
High
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native 24
Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 10
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 10
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity 26
Distribution And Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 3 High
Abundance Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 3
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 12
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 9
III. Trend in Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance 12 59
Distribution and Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 6 High
Abundance Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 9
Reproductive Characteristics 9
General Management Difficulty 18
IV. Management Minimum Time Commitment 40
10
Difficulty
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10 High
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Section Subrank Values Points I-Rank Intervals I-Rank

High Medium Low Insignificant

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 50 76 – 100 High

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 25 51 – 75 Medium

Abundance
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 15 26 – 50 Low 100
Abundance HIGH
0 – 25
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 10 Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Parthenium hysterophorus or Whitetop aggressively colonises areas with poor
groundcover and exposed soil such as wastelands, roadsides and overgrazed pastures. Whitetop
is present in bio-geographic units occupying more than 20% of the region in which it is found.
This species is a severe threat to native species and ecological communities.
The invasiveness of Parthenium hysterophorus has been ranked “High”.

33
 Paspalum conjugatum - Buffalo Grass
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Gramineae Paspalum conjugatum Berg. Buffalo grass, carabograss, hilograss
DESCRIPTION
Pernnial mat-forming grass, glabrous or even hairy
Life Form □ annual □ tufted stoloniferous perennial spreading □ rhizomatous
Culm 20 - 60cm tall erect branching geniculate rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 8 – 20 cm long 5 -15 mm wide } 10 - 15 x as long as wide
linear lanceolate
Ligule 0.5 mm □ hairy ring membranous truncate □ fringed
Inflorescence
Description: Composed of 2 -3 branches; each 5 – 12 cm long

branch-axis narrowly winged (0.8 mm wide)

Spikelets solitary □ sessile

□ binate subsessile
□ ternate □ pedicelled
mm long
Glumes g1 absent
g2 equalling the spikelet, 2-nerved

Lemmas l1 equalling the spikelet, 2-nerved

l2 not strongly indurate
Hairiness
Culm nodes
Leaf upper side underside margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis □ branched-axis
Spikelets silky-fringed □ with short hair/bearded callus □ pedicel
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector Externally by other animals □ Internally by other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire

ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL

HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control Manual: Close cutting and heavy grazing
□ Mechanical
Chemical: Herbicides
□ Biological

34
Scientific Name: Paspalum conjugatum Common Name: Buffalo Grass

Whole Plant – In Laboratory Rooting System

Seeds

35
 Scientific name: Paspalum conjugatum Common name: Buffalo grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 11 42
Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 6
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 3
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 16
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 13
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 5 Low
II. Current Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded 1
in Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 33
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 6
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and 4
Abundance
Other Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 3
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 6 12
IV. Management Insig.
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species 0
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Rank

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 30

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 8 Low
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 5
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 0
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Paspalum conjugatum or Buffalo-grass influences abiotic ecosystem processes and
wide-spread parameters and may occasionally threaten one or more rare or vulnerable native species or
ecological communities. It occupies a small part of the region within a small number (2-3) of habitats or
ecological systems. Its range is stable and long-distance dispersal is infrequent. The management of
Buffalo-grass is relatively easy and inexpensive.
The invasiveness of Paspalum conjugatum has been ranked “Low”.

36
Paspalum fasciculatum - Bamboo Grass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Gramineae Paspalum fasciculatum Bamboo grass, Bull grass

DESCRIPTION
A course perennial with extensively creeping and sometimes climbing stems several meters in length

Life Form □ annual □ tufted stoloniferous spreading perennial rhizomatous

Culm 15-50cm tall □ erect □ branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 50 cm long 1-3 mm wide } 10-20 x as long as wide
linear □ lanceolate
Ligule ? mm hairy □ membranous □ truncate □ fringed
Inflorescence
Description: openly fanlike with up to 20 branches 7-17cm long.
main axis straight
branch-axis small
Spikelets 1 – flower
4mm long ~ 1mm wide} ~ 2.5 x as long as wide
□ binate □ solitary □ sessile
□ ternate □ pedicelled □ subsessile
Glumes g1 absent
g2 equalling the spikelet
Lemmas l1 ± equalling the spikelet
Hairiness
Culm □ nodes
Leaf upper side □ underside margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings □ Seeds □ Sods □ Springs □ Tubers

DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by other
animals

INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens

Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization

Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production □ Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or fire

ALLOPATHIC POTENTIAL

HABITAT
Waste places □ Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
□ Chemical
□ Biological

37
Scientific Name: Paspalum fasciculatum Common Name: Bamboo Grass

Whole Plant - In Field Whole Plant - In Laboratory

Seeds – In laboratory Seeds – On Plant

38
Scientific name: Paspalum fasciculatum Common name: Bamboo-grass; Bull-grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 11 65
Parameters Med
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 12
I. Ecological 12
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 6
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 24
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 10 29
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 15 High
Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
II. Current
Distribution And
Abundance
Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 34
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 6
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 2
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 12 29
IV. Management Med
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Sub-rank Values I-Rank I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Intervals

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 33 76 – 100 High 70

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 25 Medium
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 5
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Paspalum fasciculatum or Bamboo Grass influences abiotic ecosystem processes,
significantly altering the ecological community composition where it is found. It is partially distributed
within the region, however negatively impacts on more than 50% of the biodiversity where it is found. Its
range can be described as stable or expanding slowly nut has the potential to expand to other habitats and
ecosystems not currently occupied. The management of Bamboo Grass requires major short-term or
moderate long-term investment which will have moderate impacts on native species.
The invasiveness of Paspalum fasciculatum has been ranked “Medium”.

39
Rottboellia cochinchinensis - Corn Grass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Poaceae Gramineae Rottboellia Corn grass, Guinea-fowl grass, Itchgrass, Kelly grass, Kokoma
cochinchinensis grass, Raoul grass
DESCRIPTION
Annual or perennial tufted grass, culms simple or branched in old plants
Life Form annual □ tufted □ spreading □ perennial
Culm 0.3 – 3.0 m tall erect □branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 20 – 60 cm long 2 cm wide
linear □ lanceolate
Ligule 2 mm □ hairy ring membranous □ truncate □ fringed
Inflorescence
Description: Cylindrical raceme, 3 – 15cm long

Spikelets awnless; 3.5 – 6 mm long; 2.5 – 3 mm wide

□ binate □ similar □ ternate □ dissimilar
sessile pedicelled □ reduced
Glumes g1 3.5 – 5mm long
g2 3 – 5mm long; keel narrowly winged toward the tip
Hairiness
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin
PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind Buoyant Bird Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals Internally by other
animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens

Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization

Persistence attributes Prolific seed production □ Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or
fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Important fast growing annual; Vigorous plant
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control Manual: Burning, ploughing and burying seeds
Mechanical: Early in the growing season
Chemical: Herbicides (Resistant to certain herbicides)
Biological: Fungi; Rust; Smut

40
Scientific Name: Rottboellia cochinchinensis Common Name: Corn Grass

Whole Plant - In Field Whole Plant - In Laboratory

Rooting System Seeds

41
 Scientific name: Rottboellia cochinchinensis Common name: Corn-grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 11 46
Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
I. Ecological 6
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 7
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native 16
Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 10 19
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 5 Med
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 12 43
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Med
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 6
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 2
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 9
General Management Difficulty 12 28
IV. Management Med
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species 10
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Subrank Values I-Rank I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Intervals

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 51

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 17 Medium
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 10
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Rottboellia cochinchinensis or Corn Grass influences abiotic ecosystem processes
and system-wide parameters, impacting on at least one layer of the community structure. Its current
distribution and abundance is substantial (10 – 30%) of the region and negatively impacts 5 – 20% of the
surrounding biodiversity. The range of this species is increasing in some but not all directions, with the
potential to increase 10 – 30% of the region if not prevented from spreading. The management of Corn
Grass requires a short-term or moderate long-term investment over a period of 5 – 10 years.
The invasiveness of Rottboellia cochinchinensis has been ranked “Medium”.

42
Setaria poiretiana - Gamalot

Botanical Name Common Name

Family: Gramineae Setaria poiretiana (Schult.) Gamalot

Description
Perennial caespitose erect herb, turgid, glabrous or hispid near nodes.
Life Form □ annual □ tufted □ spreading perennial
Culm 1m tall erect □branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 1m long 10 cm wide
□ linear □ lanceolate

Ligule 1 - 2mm hairy ring □ membranous □ truncate □ fringed

Inflorescence
Description: Panicle densely flowered on a long stalk, up to 60 cm long and 10cm broad;
Branches numerous and often drooping to one side.
main axis
branch-axis jointed □ not jointed

Spikelets □ binate □ similar □ ternate □ dissimilar

□ sessile, and □ pedicelled □ reduced
mm long

Hairiness
Culm □nodes
Leaf □ upper side □ underside □ margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis □ branched-axis
Spikelets □ with short hair/bearded callus □ pedicel
Propagation
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods Sprigs □ Tubers

Dispersal Mechanism
□ Wind □ Buoyant Bird Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals Internally by other
animals
Invasiveness
Undesirable Traits Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens

Fecundity/Reproduction Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization

Persistence attributes Prolific seed production □ Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation
or fire
Allelopathic Potential

Habitat
□Waste places □ Rotation crops □ Perennial crop □ Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
Management
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
□ Chemical
□ Biological

43
 Scientific name: Setaria poiretiana Common name: Gamalot

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 22 59
Parameters Med
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 9
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 6
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal 6
Species [negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities 16
and Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 5 13
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 5 Low
Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
II. Current Distribution
And Abundance
Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units 1
Invaded
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems 2
Invaded in Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 44
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Med
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 9
III. Trend in Distribution Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance 12
and Abundance Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and 4
Other Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 5
General Management Difficulty 12 28
Med
IV. Management Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 10
Impacts of Management on Native Species 5
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 33 76 – 100 High 58

II. Current Distribution and Abundance 25 17 8 0 8 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 10 51 – 75 Medium
Abundance
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7 26 – 50 Low

0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Setaria poiretiana or Gamalot causes significant alteration to ecosystem processes.
This species is currently wide-spread in the region and negatively affects more than 50% of the
biodiversity in its range. It has great potential for frequent long-distance dispersal. The management of
Gamalot will require major short-term or a moderate long-term investment over a period of 5 – 10 years.
The invasiveness of Setaria poiretiana had been ranked as “Medium”.

44
Sporobolus indicus - Tapia Grass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Gramineae Sporobolus indicus
Tapia, Drop seed, Hay grass

DESCRIPTION
A tufted perennial with erect wiry stems up to about 60cm tall in flower
Life Form □ annual □ spreading perennial tufted
Culm 30 -100cm tall erect □ branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 20-30 cm long 1.5-6 mm wide } 50-100 x as long as wide
linear □ lanceolate
Ligule 0.2-0.5mm □ hairy ring membranous, ciliate
Inflorescence
Description: a spike-like, but interrupted panicle 10-40 cm long, composed of ∞ ascending branches,
each 1-5cm long
Spikelets 1 – flower
1.5-2mm long
Glumes g1 ~ 1mm long
g2 ~ 1mm long, acute
Lemmas l nerved
awnless
Floret with [2] 3 stamens

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant □ Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □
Internally by other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-
fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production □ Tolerates or benefits from mutilation,
cultivation or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Reduces pasture productivity; Aggressive in wet and swampy soils
HABITAT
Waste places □ Rotation crops □ Perennial crop □ Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control Manual: Removed manually
□ Mechanical
Chemical: Herbicides
□ Biological

45
Scientific Name: Sporobolus indicus Common Name: Tapia Grass

Rooting System

Whole Plant - In Field

Seeds – On Plant

Whole Plant – In Laboratory Seeds

46
 Scientific name: Sporobolus indicus Common name: Tapia

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide Parameters 7 30
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6 Low
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 6
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species [negative 3
impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native 8
Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 0 1
II. Current Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 0 Insig.
Distribution And Impacting Biodiversity
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 1
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Region 0
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 32
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 1 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 3
III. Trend in
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance 6
Distribution and
Abundance Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 4
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 12 23
IV. Management Minimum Time Commitment 5 Low
Difficulty
Impacts of Management on Native Species 5
Accessibility of invaded areas 1

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 25

Insg.
II. Current Distribution 25 17 8 0 0 51 – 75 Medium
and Abundance
26 – 50 Low
III. Trend in Distribution 15 10 5 0 5
and Abundance 0 – 25 Insignificant

IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 3

I-Rank Summary: Sporoobolus indicus or Tapia has minimal influence on abiotic ecosystem processes,
rarely threatening rare or vulnerable native species. Tapia is present in few bio-geographic units
occupying less than 20% of the region in which it is found. Its range is usually stable with areas of
contraction balancing areas of expansion. The management of this species requires a short-term or a
moderate long-term investment for a period of 2 – 5 years.
The invasiveness of Sporoobolus indicus has been ranked “Insignificant”.

47
Urochloa fusca - Birdseed-grass

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

Family: Poaceae Urochloa fusca syn. Panicum Birdseed grass, Top millet, Browntop signalgrass
fasciculatum / maximum
DESCRIPTION
An annual or short-lived perennial grass with spreading or ascending tufts.
Life Form annual tufted spreading perennial
Culm 30 - 100 cm tall □ erect □branching □ geniculate □ rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 10 - 30 cm long 6 – 20 mm wide
□ linear □ lanceolate

Ligule 1mm hairy ring membranous □ truncate □ fringed

Inflorescence
Description: Panicles 5 – 20 cm, with raceme-like, ascending branches

main axis
branch-axis □jointed □ not jointed

Spikelets □ binate □ similar □ ternate □ dissimilar

□ sessile pedicelled □ reduced
2 – 2.8 mm long
Hairiness
Culm □nodes
Leaf upper side □ underside margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis □ branched-axis
Spikelets □ with short hair/bearded callus pedicel

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
□ Wind □ Buoyant Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by
other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic □ Toxic □ Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes □ Prolific seed production □ Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation
or fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL

HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control □ Manual
□ Mechanical
□ Chemical
□ Biological

48
 Scientific name: Urochloa fusca Common name: Birdseed-grass

A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 11 34
Parameters Low
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 6
I. Ecological 6
Impact on Ecological Community Composition
Impact
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 3
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 8
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 0 8
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively 0 Insig.
II. Current Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 1
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 1
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 6 31
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 2 Low
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 9
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other 2
Abundance
Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 3
Reproductive Characteristics 3
General Management Difficulty 6 18
IV. Management Low
Difficulty Minimum Time Commitment 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species 5
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Sub-rank Values I-Rank Intervals I-

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points Rank

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 17 76 – 100 High 25

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 0 Insig.
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution and 15 10 5 0 5
Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 3
0 – 25
Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Urochloa fusca syn. Panicum fasciculatum / maximum or Birdseed Grass influences
abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters, impacting on at least one layer of the
community structure. Currently its abundance and distribution is isolated / spotty and it impacts on less
than 5% of other species within its region. Its range is stable however it has the potential to increase by 10
– 30% if not prevented from spreading owing to frequent long-distance dispersal. The management of
Birdseed Grass is relatively easy and inexpensive and requires control for 2 – 5 years. The invasiveness of
Urochloa fusca syn.
Panicum fasciculatum / maximum has been ranked “Insignificant”.

49
Urochloa maxima - Guinea Grass
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Family: Poaceae Urochloa maxima syn. Panicum maximum Jacq. Guinea Grass, Green Panic
DESCRIPTION
A variable species; perennial grass, glabrous, in erect tufts
Life Form □ annual tufted □ spreading perennial
Culm 3 m tall erect □branching □ geniculate rooting at the nodes
Leaf Blade 15 – 100 cm long 15 - 35 mm wide
linear □ lanceolate
Ligule 1.5 – 4 mm hairy ring membranous □ truncate fringed
Inflorescence
Description: Inflorescence large and pyramidal in shape; elongated branches
Loose, spreading panicle; 12 – 40cm long; 25 cm wide
main axis
branch-axis □jointed □ not jointed
Spikelets 3 – 3.5 mm long
□ binate □ similar □ ternate □ dissimilar
□ sessile pedicelled □ reduced
Glumes g1 broad; obtuse; 5-nerved; < 0.33 as long as g2
g2 equalling the spikelet
Lemmas l1 oblong with minute transverse wrinkles
l2 enclosed male floret; 5 – 7-nerved

Hairiness
Culm nodes
Leaf □ upper side □ underside □ margin □ mouth only
Sheath □ on lower leaves □ sheath-margin
Axis □ main axis □ branched-axis
Spikelets □ with short hair/bearded callus □ pedicel

PROPAGATION
□ Bare Root □ Bulb □ Corms □ Cuttings Seeds □ Sods □ Sprigs □ Tubers
DISPERSAL MECHANISM
Wind Buoyant Bird □ Vegetative Vector □ Externally by other animals □ Internally by
other animals
INVASIVENESS
Undesirable Traits □ Spines/Thorns/Burrs □ Parasitic Toxic Hosts for pests/pathogens
Fecundity/Reproduction □ Produces large quantity of seeds □ Hybridizes naturally □ Self-fertilization
Persistence attributes Prolific seed production Tolerates or benefits from mutilation, cultivation or
fire
ALLELOPATHIC POTENTIAL
Forms dense stands which suppress and displace local plants due to resistance to drought and fires
HABITAT
Waste places Rotation crops Perennial crop Grassland □ Aquatic biotopes
MANAGEMENT
Control Manual: Hand pulling; Grubbing; Spraying
□ Mechanical
Chemical: Herbicides; Grass killers
Biological: Plants die under continuous grazing

50
Scientific Name: Urochloa maxima Common Name: Guinea Grass

Rooting System

Whole Plant – In Field

Seeds – On Plant

Seeds – In Laboratory

Whole Plant – In Laboratory

51
 Scientific name: Urochloa maxima Common name: Guinea-grass
A B C D Total
Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide 33 71
Parameters Med
Impact on Ecological Community Structure 12
I. Ecological Impact Impact on Ecological Community Composition 12
Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species 6
[negative impacts]
Conservation Significance of the Communities and 8
Native Species Threatened
Current Range Size in Region 10 24
Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is 10 Med
II. Current Negatively Impacting Biodiversity
Distribution And
Abundance Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded 2
Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in 2
Region
Current Trend in Total Range Within the Region 12 41
Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied 1 Med
Long-Distance Dispersal Potential Within Region 6
III. Trend in 6
Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance
Distribution and
Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and 4
Abundance
Other Native Species Habitats
Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere 6
Reproductive Characteristics 6
General Management Difficulty 12 29
IV. Management Minimum Time Commitment 10 Med
Difficulty 5
Impacts of Management on Native Species
Accessibility of invaded areas 2

Subrank Values I-Rank Intervals I-Rank

Section High Medium Low Insignificant Points

I. Ecological Impact 50 33 17 0 33 76 – 100 High 67

II. Current Distribution and 25 17 8 0 17 Medium
Abundance 51 – 75 Medium
III. Trend in Distribution 15 10 5 0 10
and Abundance 26 – 50 Low
IV. Management Difficult 10 7 3 0 7
0 – 25 Insignificant

I-Rank Summary: Urochloa maxima syn. Panicum maximum or Guinea Grass has major
irreversible disruption of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters. It
substantially changes the density or total coverage of an existing layer within the ecological
community structure. This species currently occupies a substantial (10 – 30%) part of the region,
negatively impacting on 20 – 50% of the surrounding biodiversity. Its range is increasing in
some but not all directions as long-distance dispersal is infrequent. It regularly establishes in
mid-successional native vegetation. The management of Guinea Grass requires a major short-
term or moderate long-term investment for a period of 5 – 10 years.
The invasiveness of Urochloa maxima syn. Panicum maximum has been ranked “Medium”.

52
 Summary Table of I-Rank Invasiveness

Table 1: Table showing summary of I-Rank Invasiveness

Invasive Weed Species Invasiveness

High Medium Low Insignificant
Axonopus compressus X
Brachiaria mutica X
Commelina diffusa X
Cyperus rotundus X
Echinochloa colonum X
Eleusine indica X
Parthenium hysterophorus X
Paspalum conjugatum X
Paspalum fasciculatum X
Rottboellia cochinchinensis X
Setaria poiretiana X
Sporobolus indicus X
Urochloa fusca X
Urochloa maxima X

53
References
Bayer Crop Science. Crop Compendium. The Knowledge Resources for Farmers, Scientists and
Agro Consultants. Monheim, Germany. Retrieved from
http://compendium.bayercropscience.com/bayer/cropscience/cropcompendium/bcscropcomp.
nsf/id/Home
Bhadoria, P.B.; 2010. Allelopathy: A Natural Way towards Weed Management. American
Journal of Experimental Agriculture 1(1)
Brown University (n.d.) IPlant: Invasive Plants and the Nursery Industry. Characteristics of
Invasive Plants. Retrieved October 2012 from website
http://www.brown.edu/Research/EnvStudies_Theses/full9900/mhall/IPlants/IPlant_Characteri
stics.html\
Centre for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 2012. University of Florida; IFAS Extension. Retrieved
from http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/
Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson,
J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. and Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical Forages: an
interactive selection tool., [CD-ROM], CSIRO, DPI&F(Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane,
Australia.
Duke, S.O.; 1985. Biosynthesis of phenolic compounds—Chemical manipulation in higher
plants. In A.C. Thompson (ed.) The chemistry of allelopathy: Biochemical interactions
among plants. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 268. Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC.
Global Invasive Species Database (GISD), 2005. Retrieved from http://www.issg.org/database
Gould, Lisa (2000) Overviews of issues surrounding invasive species, lecture at Invasive Plants
in Rhode Island: Issues and Concerns, February 2, 2000, University of Rhode Island.
Häfliger, E. & Scholz, H.; 1980. Grass Weeds 1. CIBA-GEIGY Ltd., Basle, Switzerland
Häfliger, E. & Scholz, H.; 1981. Grass Weeds 2. CIBA-GEIGY Ltd., Basle, Switzerland
Häfliger, E. et. Al; 1982. Monocot Weeds 3. CIBA-GEIGY Ltd., Basle, Switzerland
Hoagland, R.E., Williams, R.D.; 1985. The influence of secondary plant compounds on the
associations of soil microorganisms and plant roots. In A.C. Thompson (ed.) The chemistry of
allelopathy: Biochemical interactions among plants. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 268. ACS,
Washington, DC.
Holm, LG., Plucknett, DL., Pancho, JV & Herberger, JP.; 1977. The World’s Worst Weeds –
Distribution and Biology. The University Press of Hawaii.
Koning, Ross E. 1994. Natural Vegetative Propagation. Plant Physiology Information Website.
http://plantphys.info/plants_human/vegprop/vegpropn.shtml.

Iowa State University. 1997. Weed Seed Dispersal. Retrieved October 2012, from website
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/~Weeds/ag317/bioeco/lifecycle/disperse.html
54
Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 2006. Invasive Species Definition Clarification and
Guidance White Paper. United States Department of Agcriulture. April 27, 2006. From
website http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf

Mehrhoff, Leslie J. (1998) The biology of invasiveness. Invaders, New England Wild Flower:
Conservation notes of the New England Wild Flower Society 2(3): 8-10. Retrieved October
2012 from website: http://www.newfs.org /invasive/invasive.htm

National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: National
Invasive Species Management Plan. 80 pp.

North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), 1431 Merivale Road, 3rd. Floor,
Room 140, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0Y9 – Canada. Retrieved from http://www.nappo.org
PIER 2012. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry;
Pacific island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER). Plant threats to Pacific Ecosystems. Retrieved from
http://www.hear.org/pier/index.html
Queensland Government, 2011. Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry. Weed control Methods.
Retrieved on 23.05.12 from http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_7043.htm
Radosevich, S. Holt, J. Ghesrsa, C. (2007) Ecology if Weeds and Invasive Plants. Relationship
to Agriculture and Natural Resource Management 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Rice, E.L.; 1984a. Allelopathy. 2nd ed., Academic Press, Orlando, FL, USA

Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust; 2012. PlantNET - The Plant Information Network
System of The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from
http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
Sadhu, M. 1989. Plant Propagation 1st Edition. New Age International Publishers

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service; Plants

Database. Retrieved from http://plants.usda.gov/java/

55
Glossary
Annual Plants completing their life cycle within one year.

Auricle small claw or ear-like outgrowths at the junction of the sheath and blade of some grasses

Axis main stem of the plant or of the flower-head (rhachis), or spikelet (rhachilla)

Awn a bristle on a glume of a grass spikelet or floret

Binate in pairs

Blade part of the leaf above the sheath, also known as the lamina, often flat, but sometimes
bristle-like

Bract much reduced leaf of the flower-head such as the glumes and lemmas

Bristle stiff hair or very fine straight awn, also applied to the upper part of the awn

Burr a rough or prickly covering around seeds, fruits or spikelets

Callus hard projections at the base of the floret or spikelet where these form the seed-units of
some grasses

Capillary hair-like

Capitates head-shaped; collected into a head or dense cluster

Cleft cut or divided into lobes

Culm stem of grasses

Deciduous falling off at maturity or end of life, such as the blades of some grasses

Digitate fingered, arranged like fingers on a hand

Disarticulating fracturing at the nodes, as the axis of the spikelet of many grasses

Erose irregular and uneven, as if gnawed or worn away

Exserted projecting beyond the surrounding parts

Filiform thread-like

Floret lemma and palea with the enclosed flower; florets may be bisexual and perfect or
unisexual and male or female, or barren (neuter), or reduced to the lemma

Geniculate bent abruptly like a knee

Glume two (usually) empty bracts at the base of the spikelet

Grain naked seed

Hermaphrodite with both male and female organs

56
Hyaline translucent and delicate tissue

Imbricate overlapping

Inflorescence flower-head terminating the stem (and its branches)

Internode portion between two successive nodes (e.g. of the culm, flower-head or spikelet)

Involucre a ring of bracts or bristles forming a structure at the base of a flower or floret or floret or
a group of flowers or florets

Involute with the margins rolled inwards

Joint used for the node of the culm, also applied to the internodes of the axis of both the spike
and the spikelet

Keel sharp fold or ridge at the back of a compressed sheath, blade, glume, lemma, or palea

Lanceolate lance-shaped, widest in the lowest third and gradually narrowed upwards

Lemma lower of two bracts enclosing the flower

Ligule outgrowth at the inner junction of the leaf-sheath and blade, often membranous,
sometimes represented by a fringe of hairs

Linear long narrow, with parallel sides.

Membranous translucent, thin and dry, not green

Node point on steam or axis form which a leaf or bract arises

Palea upper two bracts enclosing the flower

Panicle branched flower-head, with main axis, divided branches and stalked spikelets, ranging
from very dense and spike-like to very diffuse

Pedicel applied to the stalk of the spikelet

Peduncle in grasses, the stalk of a spikelet cluster or inflorescence

Perennial of more than two years duration

Pistil the female organ of the flower, consisting of the ovary and one or more styles and
stigmas

Raceme unbranched flower-head with spikelets stalked directly on the axis

Rhachilla main axis of spikelet

Rhachis axis of flower head

Rhizome underground steam, bearing scale-like leaves

Scale miniature leaf without blade, found at the base of stems and on rhizomes

57
Sessile without stalk

Sheath lower part of the leaf, the part that encloses the stem

Spathe a large bract enclosing an inflorescence or partial inflorescence

Spike unbranched flower-head bearing stalkless spikelets

Spikelet unit of the grass flower-head, generally composed of 2 glumes and one or more flowers
each borne between a lemma and palea

Spine a stiff sharp-pointed projection

Stamen male (pollen bearing) part of flower

Stigma part of female organ which receives the pollen

Style connexion between stigma and ovary

Terminal at the tip

Ternate in threes

Truncate ending abruptly as though cut off

Verticillate whorled, arranged in verticils

Villous bearing long, soft, unmated hairs

Whorl a ring of similar parts radiating from a node

58
Appendix
INVASIVE SPECIES ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

Section I. Ecological Impact

Q1. Impact on Ecosystem Processes and System-Wide Parameters
A. Major, irreversible, alteration or disruption of abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters
B. Significant alteration
C. influences abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters
D. No perceivable impact on abiotic ecosystem processes and system-wide parameters
U. Unknown

Q2. Impact on Ecological Community Structure

A. Major alteration of ecological community structure e.g. covers canopy
B. changes number of layers below canopy, substantial change in density or total cover of existing layer
C. influences structure of at least one layer (e.g., moderately changes density).
D. No impact
U. Unknown

Q3. Impact on Ecological Community Composition

A. Causes major alteration in ecological community composition
B. Significantly alters ecological community composition
C. Influences ecological community composition
D. No impact.
U. Unknown

Q4. Impact on Individual Native Plant or Animal Species

A. Major negative impacts - > 50%
B. Significant negative impacts – 20 to 50%
C. Occasional negative impact – 5 to 20%
D. Little or no impact –
U. Unknown

Q5. Conservation Significance of the Communities and Native Species Threatened

A. often threatens one or more rare or vulnerable native species or ecological communities
B. may occasionally threaten one or more rare or vulnerable native species or ecological communities
C. usually inhibits common, unthreatened habitats and rarely threatens rare or vulnerable native species

59
D. found primarily or only in human-disturbed habitats and not known to threaten any rare
U. Unknown

Section II. Current Distribution and Abundance

Q6. Current Range Size in Region
A. Widespread in region e.g., > 30% of region
B. Substantial part of region e.g., 10-30% of region
C. Small part of region e.g., 0.1-10% of region
D. Isolated or spotty range in region e.g., < 0.1% of region
U. Unknown

Q7. Proportion of Current Range Where Species Is Negatively Impacting Biodiversity

A. Impacts occur in > 50% of the species
B. Impacts occur in 20-50% of the species
C. Impacts occur in 5-20% of the species
D. Impacts occur in < 5% of the species
U. Unknown

Q8. Proportion of Region’s Biogeographic Units Invaded

A. Present in most biogeographic units (e.g., > 50%)
B. Present in many biogeographic units (e.g., 20-50%)
C. Present in few biogeographic units (e.g., < 20%)
D. Present in only one minor biogeographic unit
U. Unknown

Q9. Diversity of Habitats or Ecological Systems Invaded in Region

A. Many (6 or more) distinct habitats or ecological systems invaded
B. Moderate number (4-5) of distinct habitats or ecological systems invaded
C. Small number (2-3) of habitats or ecological systems invaded
D. Only a single habitat or ecological system invaded
U. Unknown

Section III. Trend in Distribution and Abundance

Q10. Current Trend in Total Range within the Region
What are the trends in the species generalized range?
A. Range expanding in most or all directions, and/or spreading into new portions of the region

60
 B. Range increasing in some directions but not most or all
C. Range stable, or areas of range contraction balancing areas of expansion
D. Range decreasing
U. Unknown

Q11. Proportion of Potential Range Currently Occupied

This question compares (a) the species’ current generalized range within the region of interest with (b) the
potential generalized range it is considered to be capable of occupying if it is not prevented from spreading.
A. < 10% of potential range currently occupied
B. 10-30% of potential range currently occupied
C. 30-90% of potential range currently occupied
D. > 90% of potential range currently occupied
U. Unknown

Q12. Long-Distance Dispersal Potential within Region

What is the species’ potential for long-distance dispersal (>100 km or 60 miles) by humans (intentionally or
unintentionally), by other animals, or by abiotic factors (e.g., wind, rivers, or floods)?
A. Long-distance dispersal frequent
B. Long-distance dispersal infrequent
C. Long-distance dispersal rare but known
D. Long-distance dispersal seldom or never
U. Unknown

Q13. Local Range Expansion or Change in Abundance

Is the species increasing in abundance (cover, density, frequency, etc.) within its current non-native range in
the region and/or locally expanding within or at the edges of this range based on trends of the past 10-20
years?
A. Local range and/or species abundance increasing rapidly - likely to double within 10 years
B. Local range expanding at a moderate rate - likely to increase by 50% in 10 years
C. Local range expanding slowly and/or abundance increasing significantly by >25%
D. Species abundance and local range stable or decreasing
U. Unknown

Q14. Inherent Ability to Invade Conservation Areas and Other Native Species Habitats
Does the species invade well-established, mature natural vegetation?
A. Regularly establishes in undisturbed mature native vegetation
B. Regularly establishes in mid-successional native vegetation

61
 C. Often establishes in areas where major natural or human-caused disturbance has occurred
D. Not known to spread significantly into conservation areas or native species habitat
U. Unknown

Q15. Similar Habitats Invaded Elsewhere

Is this species established outside its native range in places besides the region of interest, or other island
groups?
A. Escaped in 3 or more habitats or ecosystem types which it has not yet invaded in the region
B. Escaped in 1-2 habitats or ecosystem types which it has not yet invaded in the region
C. Escaped elsewhere but only in habitat types comparable to those it has already invaded
D. Not known as an escape except in the region of interest
U. Unknown

Q16. Reproductive Characteristics

How do you rate the aggressiveness of the species based on the following?
 Produces over 1,000 seeds or spores per plant annually
 Reproduces more than once per year
 Grows more rapidly to reproductive maturity than most plants of its life form
 Reproduces readily both vegetatively and by seeds or spores
 Has seeds (or spores) that remain viable in soil for three or more years
 Has quickly spreading rhizomes or stolons that may root at nodes
 Re-sprouts readily when broken, cut, grazed, or burned
 Fragments easily, with fragments capable of dispersing and subsequently becoming established

A. Extremely aggressive – strongly exhibits three or more of the above characteristics

B. Moderately aggressive – strongly exhibits two of the above characteristics
C. Somewhat aggressive – strongly exhibits one of the above characteristics
D. Not aggressive – none of the above characteristics or weakly exhibits only one
U. Unknown

Section IV. Management Difficulty

Q17. General Management Difficulty
Given the current state of knowledge regarding management methods, how difficult is it to control an
established stand of this species?
A. Requires a major, long-term investment or is not possible with available technology [> $1,500/ha]
B. Requires a major short-term, or a moderate long-term investment [$400/ha]

62
 C. Relatively easy and inexpensive [$100/ha]
D. Managing this species is not necessary – species does not persist
U. Unknown

Q18. Minimum Time Commitment

What is the minimum time commitment needed to control this species in which it is abundant or well
established, including follow-up survey and monitoring? [Consider longevity of seed, shoot, or root banks as
appropriate, including time necessary for restoration if this is necessary].
A. Control requires at least 10 years
B. Control requires 5-10 years
C. Control requires 2-5 years
D. Control (if needed) can normally be accomplished within 2 years
U. Unknown

Q19. Impacts of Management on Native Species

Do the effective methods for managing this species normally cause significant and persistent reductions in the
abundance of native species (sometimes referred to as collateral or non-target damage)?
A. Impacts often severe ( >75% of the time)
B. Impacts moderate (25-75% of the time)
C. Impacts minor ( <25% of the time)
D. Impacts insignificant or rare
U. Unknown

Q20. Accessibility of Invaded Areas

The problem of the accessibility of infestations within the conservation areas or other native species habitats is
considered here, because species found in inaccessible areas are more difficult to control.
A. High- many invaded areas not accessible for treatment
B. Medium- substantial percentage of the area invaded by this species inaccessible [5-30%]
C. Low- relatively small percentage of the area invaded [<5%]
D. Insignificant or rare
U. Unknown

63
 Herbicide Chemical Name / Rate of Application Active Ingredients Activity
Trade Names Compound
Roundup® G2, N- 720g a.i. in 200l/ha water; Glyphosate, acid, Glyphosate prevents weeds
Renew, (phosphonomethyl) drizzle applications at 1 monoammonium salt, from making certain
Glyphosate 360, glycine lb/acre; solution of 1– diammonium proteins that are needed for
Trounce®, Zero, 1.5% salt, isopropylamine plant growth. It stops a
Touchdown, glyphosate product in salt, potassium salt, specific enzyme pathway,
water sprayed to wet the sodium salt, and the shikimic acid pathway,
foliage trimethylsulfonium or found only in plants and
trimesium salt. some microorganisms.
Basagran, (IUPAC) 3- Rates, from 0.75 lb. Bentazone, bentazon The active ingredient is
Bendioxide, isopropyl-1H-2,1,3- a.1./acre to 2 lb. a.i./acre, principally absorbed by the
Bentazone, Bas benzothiadiazin- vary by crop, geographic green parts of plants and
351-H, Leader, 4(3H)-one 2,2- region, target species, and acts as a photosynthesis
Pledge. dioxide site conditions. inhibitor. It interferes with
the ability of susceptible
plants to use sunlight for
photosynthesis.
Molinate, S-ethylazepane-1- Ground application rate Molinate Molinate controls
Hydram, Ordram carbothiate. of 3.75 L/ha in 200 L germinating dicotyledonous
and Yalan water; Aerial application and grass weeds through its
rate of 3.75 L/ha in 20- toxicity.
100 L water
Goal, Innova 2-chloro-1-(3- An initial application rate Oxyfluorfen, solvent Herbicides containing
Oxyfluorfen 240 ethoxy-4- of 50-100 mL/ha. naptha (petroleum), N- oxyfluorfen kill weeds by
Herbicide. nitrophenoxy)-4- Additional applications methyl-2-pyrolidone destroying cell membranes
Galigan (trifluoromethyl) may be required. (NMP) within leaves and shoots.
benzene (58)
Ronstar 50 WSP 2-tert-butyl-4-(2,4- Typical rates range from Oxadiazon Oxadiazon inhibits the plant
and Ronstar G dichloro-5- 100 to 200 pounds per enzyme protoporphyrinogen
isopropoxyphenyl)- acre. oxidase.
1,3,4-oxadiazolin-
one (56)

Halts,Prowl, 3,4-Dimethyl-2,6- Typical rates range from Pendimethaline Pendimethaline inhibits cell
Stomp, Stealth dinitro-N-pentan-3- 3.3 to 3.75 Litres per division and cell elongation
and Pendulum yl-aniline hectare. as well as root and shoot
growth.
Clincher CA®, butyl(2R)-2-[4-(4- Standard application rate Cyhalofop-butyl This herbicide is readily
Barnstorm cyano-2- of 13.5 to 15 oz. per acre absorbed by the plant tissue,
fluorophenoxy)phe and accumulates in the
noxy] propionate meristematic region of the
plant. It works by inhibition
of an enzyme which is
critical for fatty acid
biosynthesis.
Machete, N-butoxymethyl-2- Effective application rates Butachlor Butachlor inhibits cell
Butataf, chloro-2',6'- range from 1.0-4.5 kg division by blocking protein
Butanex, Trapp diethylacetanilid a.i./ha synthesis
Gramoxone® 1,1'-Dimethyl-4,4'- Apply 5.5 liters of Paraquat Gramoxone controls most
bipyridinium Gramoxone in 1100 liters small annual weeds by
dichloride of water per sprayed destroying green foliage. It
hectare or 75 mL in 10 L is rapidly absorbed by green
of water per 100 m2 of plant tissue and interacts
this with the photosynthetic

64
 mixture, 550 mL will process to produce
treat an area 1.75 m in superoxides which destroy
diameter around a tree plant cells.
Atrazine 4L 2-chloro-4- An application rate of 2 Atrazine, related Atrazine functions by
(ethylamino)-6- quarts of herbicide to 40- compounds binding to the
(isopropylamino)-s- 80 gallons of water for 1 plastoquinone-binding
triazine acre. (Use 3 tablespoons protein in photosystem II.
per 1000 sq. ft.) Plant death results from
starvation and oxidative
damage caused by
breakdown in the electron
transport process.
Bay 94337, Bay (4-amino-6-tert- Aerial application rate of Metribuzin Metrabuzin acts by
DIC 1468, butyl-3- 20 – 50 liters water per inhibiting photosystem II of
Lexone, Sencor, (methylthio)-as- hectare or ground photosynthesis by disrupting
Sencoral, and triazin-5 (4H)-one) application of 180- electron transfer. This
Sencorex. 360g/Ha results in death due to
starvation in the target plant.
Asulam 400 N-(4- When using a boom Sodium salt of asulam Asluam is a translocated
Aminophenyl)sulfo sprayer, apply a minimum methyl [(4- herbicide which prevents
nylcarbamic acid of 100 litres of water per aminophenyl) the growth of weeds.
methyl ester hectare. sulfonyl] carbamate
For aerial applications,
apply a minimum of 28
litres per hectare
Treflan® 5G, 2,6-Dinitro-N,N- Trifluralin is applied at a Trifluralin, inert This product inhibits root
Treflan® E.C., dipropyl-4- rate of 20lb/A for all soil ingredients including development by interrupting
Trifluralin® 4EC (trifluoromethyl)ani textures. xylene, ethylbenzene mitosis, and thus can control
line and naphthalene weeds as they germinate.
GallantTM Ultra, 2-[4-[3-chloro-5- A single application rate Haloxyfop-P methyl Haloxyfop-P methyl ester is
Gallant NF (trifluoromethyl)py of between 35 and 108 ester, Alkyl phenolic a post-emergent, systemic
Herbicide, Ignite ridin-2- grams of active ingredient glycol ether, herbicide that disrupts the
yl]oxyphenoxy]pro per hectare per growing Diethylene glycol internal growth processes of
panoic season. monoethyl ether, established weeds resulting
Haloxyfop-R methyl in plant death 2 to 3 weeks
ester, inerts following application.
Fusilade 2000®, R-2-[4- Standard application rate Fluazifop-p-butyl This herbicide kills by
Fusion®, [[5- of 20 to 24 oz per acre inhibiting lipid synthesis
Horizon®, (trifluoromethyl)-2- particularly at the sites of
Ornamec®, pyridinyl]oxy]phen active growth.
Tornado® oxy] propanate
Hoelon, Illoxan, methyl 2-[4-(2,4- Ground application of 10 Diclofop-methyl, These herbicides work by
Hoe-Grass,and dichlorophenoxy)p gallons of water carrier liquid hydrocarbon inhibiting lipid biosynthesis,
One Shot henoxy]propanoate per acre, whereas aerial which is required for cell
applications of 5 gallons growth.
of water carrier per acre.
Manage® Methyl 5-[((4,6- An application rate of Halosulfuron-methyl, Halosulfuron-methyl
dimethoxy- 0.66 to 1.66 ounces per inerts interferes with acetolactate
2pyrimidinyl)amin acre where a second synthase enzyme, resulting
o)carbonylaminosul treatment may be in a rapid cessation of cell
fonyl]-3-chloro-1- necessary. It is applied division and plant growth in
methyl-1H- after emergence of target both roots and shoots.
pyrazole-4- weeds.
carboxylate
Pardner, Hoe 3,5-dibromo-4- Application rates range Bromoxynil Bromoxynil inhibits

65
Grass II, Buctril hydroxybenzonitril from 0.25 lb ai/acre to 0.5 photosynthetic electron
M, e lb ai/acre. transport and also uncouples
Badge, Compass, oxidative phosphorylation in
Laser, Koril, mitochondria, thereby
Mextrol and stopping energy production
Thumper and negatively affecting
plant respiration.
Halts,Prowl, N-(1-ethylpropyl)- Standard application rate Pendimethalin Pendimethalin is a selective
Stomp, Stealth 2,6-dinitro-3,4- of 0.4-2.0 kg a.i./ha herbicide, absorbed by the
and Pendulum. xylidine roots and leaves. Affected
plants die shortly after
germination or following
emergence from the soil
Dowpon, 2,2- Spray volumes of 12.5 to Dalapon Dalapon is an herbicide and
Devipon, Dichloropropionic 100 gallons per acre plant growth regulator used
Gramevin, acid to control specific annual
Liropon, Unipon, and perennial grasses. It is
Dalapon-Na, selective, meaning that it
Alatex, Ded- kills only certain plants,
Weed, Dalacide, while sparing nontarget
Radapon. types of vegetation.
AC Tossa, Sodium 2,2,3,3- For spot spraying use Flupropanate 745 g/L A slow acting, residual
Farmalinx Open tetrafluoropropanoi 200mL per 100 L of as the sodium salt agricultural herbicide for the
Range Herbicide, c acid water and for boom control of grasses. Inhibits
Herbicide, spraying use at the rate of fat synthesis.
Tussock 2.0 L per hectare
Di-on, Crisuron, N-(3,4- Typical application rates Diuron Diuron is a substituted urea
Diater, Karmex, dichlophenyl)-N,N- range from 4 to 10 herbicide used to control a
Unidron dimethyl urea pounds per acre wide variety of annual and
perennial broadleaf and
grassy weeds. Diuron works
by inhibiting photosynthesis
and thus stops the plant
from growing.

Note: Application rates detailed in this table are simply for reference purposes and may vary
according to the area of application, climate, type of application and target plant. Applications
and usage should be consistent with instructions on labels and Federal laws and regulations.

66