DOCSLIB.ORG

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT for INVASIVENESS, RESPONSE to WEEDS and RATOONING ABILITY of NEW RICE for AFRICA (NERICA) and Oryza Sativa RICE VARIETIES in CENTRAL KENYA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT for INVASIVENESS, RESPONSE to WEEDS and RATOONING ABILITY of NEW RICE for AFRICA (NERICA) and Oryza Sativa RICE VARIETIES in CENTRAL KENYA ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INVASIVENESS, RESPONSE TO WEEDS AND RATOONING ABILITY OF NEW RICE FOR AFRICA (NERICA) AND Oryza sativa RICE VARIETIES IN CENTRAL KENYA By M’RINGERA, JANE TEI B.Sc. (Hons), Moi University; PGDE, Egerton University; M.Sc., University of Nairobi A Thesis Submitted to the University of Nairobi in fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Botany (Plant Ecology) 2014 DECLARATION This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for award of degree to any other university to the best of my knowledge. No part of this thesis may be reproduced without prior permission of the author and/or the University of Nairobi. M‟Ringera, Jane Tei Signature ------------------------------------------------ Date ----------------------------------- This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as university supervisors: Prof. J.I. Kinyamario Signature ------------------------------------------------ Date --------------------------------- Dr. N. Amugune Signature ------------------------------------------------ Date ---------------------------------- Dr Niels Holst Signature ------------------------------------------------ Date ---------------------------------- ii DEDICATION To my husband Humphrey Munene, our children Emmanuel Mutugi and Joy Mwendwa and my beloved parents Mr. M‟Ringera M‟Twerandu and Mrs. Marion Karegi M‟Ringera. Their support, belief, love and encouragement have helped me realise my potential. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In developing my research ideas, collecting data, analysing the data and writing this thesis, I have relied upon innumerable gestures of support, guidance and generosity from various people who I have the pleasure to acknowledge. I am grateful to my dedicated supervisors Prof. J. I. Kinyamario, Dr. N. Amugune and Dr. N. Holst upon whom I have depended in engaging with the challenges of academic research. I specially appreciate the inputs of Dr. J. Kanya during the research and write up period. I also acknowledge the School of Biological Sciences, University of Nairobi for providing research facilities. Special tribute goes to DANIDA ENRECA through the BiosafeTrain Project for paying my University tuition fee and funding the research. I appreciate the National Irrigation Board (NIB) of Kenya through Mwea Irrigation Development Authority (MIAD) Center for providing land and other research facilities. I am earnestly grateful to my research assistants Mr. James Njoroge and Mr. James Murage for their excellent field and technical support during the data collection. I thank all MIAD staff for their generosity and moral support throughout the research period. I appreciate the great taxonomical input from Mr Patrick Mutiso on weed species identification and classification. I am also grateful to Mr Elias Thuranira for his great assistance in data analysis. My special gratitude also goes to my husband Humphrey Munene and our children Emmanuel Mutugi and Joy Mwendwa for their patience, sacrifice and encouragement throughout the study period. I appreciate my pastors Rev. Mr. & Mrs. Charles Gathungu for their steadifast spiritual and moral support throughout the study period. Finally, I am forever greatly indebted to God Almighty for His unmerited favour, grace and strength that has enabled me accomplish my dream. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... xii LIST OF PLATES .............................................................................................................. xiii LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... xv ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 Literature review .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Taxonomic status of rice ............................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Rice growing conditions ............................................................................................. 5 1.2.3 Varieties of rice cultivated in Kenya ............................................................................ 5 1.2.4 Rice production in Kenya ............................................................................................. 6 1.2.5 New rice for Africa (NERICA)..................................................................................... 7 1.2.6 Agricultural biotechnology and biosafety in Kenya ................................................... 10 1.2.7 Invasive plants ............................................................................................................ 10 1.2.7.1 Impacts of invasive exotic plants ............................................................................. 12 1.2.8 Risk assessment for invasive species .......................................................................... 14 1.2.8.1 Australian weed risk assessment system.................................................................. 15 1.2.8.1.1 Rational for answering the questions in the AWRA system................................. 16 1.2.8.1.2 Scoring the questions and converting scores into recommendations.................... 17 1.2.9 Weed types in rice fields ............................................................................................. 18 1.2.10 Weed control in rice fields ........................................................................................ 18 1.2.10.1 Methods of weed control in rice fields .................................................................. 19 1.2.10.2 Critical period of weed control in rice fields ......................................................... 20 1.2.11 Ratooning .................................................................................................................. 21 1.3 Justification .................................................................................................................... 22 1.4 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................. 24 v 1.4.1 Overall Objective ........................................................................................................ 24 1.4.2 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................... 24 1.5 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER TWO: STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 26 2.1 Study area location ......................................................................................................... 26 2.2 Soils................................................................................................................................ 26 2.3 Meteorological data ....................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER THREE: RESPONSE OF UPLAND NERICA AND ORYZA SATIVA RICE VARIETIES TO WEED INTERFERENCE IN CENTRAL KENYA .................... 30 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................... 32 3.2.1. Plant material ............................................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Experimental design.................................................................................................... 33 3.2.3 Seed selection and sowing .......................................................................................... 34 3.2.4 Data collection ............................................................................................................ 35 3.2.4 .1 Weed identification and abundance ........................................................................ 36 3.2.4.2 Viability test ............................................................................................................. 36 3.2.4.3 Growth parameters ................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4.3.1 Plant height ........................................................................................................... 36 3.2.4.3.2 Tillering ability ..................................................................................................... 37 3.2.4.3.3 Productive tillers ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods
    Wageningen Academic Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods, 2016; 8 (1): 21-31 Publishers Effect of ratooning process on the engineering properties of NERICA rice varieties O.V.I. Itabiyi1, A.A. Adebowale1*, T.A. Shittu1, S.O. Adigbo2 and L.O. Sanni1 1Department of Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Agriculture, P.M. Box 2240, Abeokuta, Nigeria; 2Department of Plant Physiology and Crop Production, Federal University of Agriculture, P.M. Box 2240, Abeokuta, Nigeria; [email protected] Received: 6 May 2014 / Accepted: 21 October 2014 © 2015 Wageningen Academic Publishers RESEARCH ARTICLE Abstract Rice ratooning is the practice of harvesting grain from tillers originating from the stubble of previously harvested crop. Comparative assessment of the engineering properties of main and ratooned NERICA rice varieties was investigated in this study. The length, width, thickness, arithmetic mean diameter, geometric mean diameter, equivalent diameter and surface area ranged from 8.21 to 10.62 mm, 2.31 to 3.60 mm, 1.67 to 2.28 mm, 13.10 to 22.67 mm, 3.26 to 3.87 mm, 6.35 to 9.98 mm, 23.15 to 42.02%, 34.20 to 51.31 mm and from 0.35 to 0.48 mm2, respectively. Bulk density, true density, porosity, thousand grain weight and volume ranged from 0.63 to 1.14 g/cm3, 0.55 to 0.67 g/cm3, 1.48 to 45.91%, 21.66 to 27.41 g and from 0.023 to 0.031 mm3, respectively. Coefficient of static friction on polished wood, plywood, metal and glass ranged from 0.35 to 0.47, 0.34 to 0.44, 0.26 to 0.34 and 0.14 to 0.21, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists ASSCT
    JOURNAL American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists Volume 2 Florida and Louisiana Divisions June 1983 ASSCT OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1981 General Officers and Committees General Secretary-Treasurer Editors of Journal Managing Editor Program Chairman Lowell L. McCormick Fred A. Martin Technical Editors Guillermo Aleman Agriculture Bryan Allain 1 Fred A. Martin H. J. Andreis Antonio Arvesu Manufacturing Jan Bergeron Harold Birkett Joseph A. Polack Patrick Cancienne Joseph Clayton Alfonso L. Fors Gerardo Fundora Dalton Landry Ben L. Legendre Irving Legendre, Jr. Denver I. Loupe Lowell L. McCormick Divisional Officers Florida Office Louisiana Joe E. Clayton President Irving Legendre, Jr. Guillermo Aleman 1st Vice President Ben L. Legendre Robert Stacy 2nd Vice President Jan Bergeron H. J. Andreis Chairman, Agricultural Section Bryan Allain Cerardo Fundora Chairman, Manufacturing Section Harold Birkett Alfonso L. Fors Chairman at Large Patrick Cancienne Antonio Arvesu Past President Dalton Landry J. R. Orsenigo Secretary-Treasurer Lowell L. McCormick i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 President's Message - Florida Division Joe E. Clayton 3 President's Message - Louisiana Division Irving E. Legendre, Jr. Agricultural Papers 5 Sugarcane Evapotranspiration Estimated By Penman Method S. F. Shin 12 The Ratooning Abilities of Four New CP Sugarcane Cultivars Compared to CP 63-588 Barry Glaz and J. D. Miller 17 Late-Season Weed Control in Sugarcane With Herbicides Applied at Lay-by R. W. Millhollon 22 The Effects of Selected Elements in Fertilizers on the Uptake of These Elements by Sugarcane Laron E. Golden 29 Influence of Smut on Production in Highly Susceptible Varieties of Sugarcane D. G. Holder 32 The Frequency of Smut Resistant Clones in the Canal Point Sugarcane Breeding Program J.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production Within the United States
    Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States ICF International February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Prepared by: ICF International 1725 I St NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 For: U.S. Department of Agriculture Climate Change Program Office Washington, DC February 2013 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States Preparation of this report was done under USDA Contract No. AG-3142-P-10-0214 in support of the project: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options and Costs for Agricultural Land and Animal Production within the United States. This draft report was provided to USDA under contract by ICF International and is presented in the form in which it was received from the contractor. Any views presented are those of the authors and are not necessarily the views of or endorsed by USDA. For more information, contact the USDA Climate Change Program Office by email at [email protected], fax (202) 401-1176, or phone (202) 720-6699. Cover Photo Credit: (Middle Photo) California Bioenergy LLC, Dairy Biogas Project, Bakersfield, CA. How to Obtain Copies: You may electronically download this document from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web site at: http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation_technologies/GHGMitigationProduction_Cost.htm For Further Information Contact: Jan Lewandrowski, USDA Project Manager ([email protected])
    [Show full text]
  • Performance of New Sugarcane Varieties in the Southern Irrigated Coastal Plains of Puerto Rico 1
    Performance of New Sugarcane Varieties in the Southern Irrigated Coastal Plains of Puerto Rico 1 Victor C. Godreau, Carlos L. Gonzalez Molina and Angel Vidal Mendez2 ABSTRACT Sixty sugarcane varieties, sorted in five experiments, were grown in the South Coastal plains for performance evaluation. Experiments were located at Guayanilla farm, at Union and Cintrona farms in Ponce, and at Florida and Centro farms in the Salinas-Santa Isabel area. Experiments were planted and cultivated following the standard practice of the sugarcane industry. Data on rendiments and tons of cane and of sugar per acre were recorded for the plant cane and two ratoon crops of each experiment. Other agronomic characteristics such as growth habits, stooling and ratooning ability, and fiber content were also recorded. Data of the three crops were statistically ana­ lyzed for rendiments, TCA and TSA. PR 63-488, CP 52-43 and PR 63-525 were the most promising varieties in the Guayanilla area. Although they did not produce significantly more sugar than the checks, they are better suited to mechanized harvesting. PR 6 1-632, PR 63-525 and PR 64-1791 were the most promising in the Ponce area (Centro and Cintrona farms) because of their higher sugar yields and their harvestability characteristics. PR 61-632, PR 1152, PR 63-525, PR 64-1791 and PR 1124 were promising in the Salinas-Santa Isabel area. With these new varieties, cost of sugar production is lower than with the old commercial varieties, which are unsuited to mechanized harvesting and have poor juice quality. INTRODUCTION Cane sugar production in Puerto Rico has sharply declined during the past 20 years from a record of 1,359,841 tons in 1952 to 287,269 tons in 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • AGR/ N0207 Prepare Land for Sugarcane Cultivation 2
    EYE ON IT Current Industry QUALIFICATIONS PACK - OCCUPATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE AND ALLIED Trends INDUSTRY Suscipit, vicis praesent erat Contents feugait epulae, validus indoles 1. Introduction and Contacts.…….P1 duis enim consequat genitus at. 2. Qualifications Pack……….….......P2 Sed, conventio, aliquip accumsan adipiscing augue 3. OS Units……………..…..…….……….P3 What are blandit minim abbas oppeto Occupational 4. Glossary of Key Terms ……….…P49 commov. Standards(OS)? Aptent nulla aliquip camur ut Enim neo velit adsum odio, OS describe what consequat aptent nisl in voco multo, in commoveo quibus individuals need consequat. Adipsdiscing magna premo tamen erat huic. Occuro to do, know and jumentum velit iriure obruo. damnum uxor dolore, ut at praemitto opto pneum. Aptent nulla aliquip camur ut understand in Introduction si sudo, opes feugiat iriure order to carry out consequat lorem aptent nisl magna validus. Sino lenis vulputate, a particular job Qualifications Pack- Sugarcane Cultivator jumentum velitan en iriure. Loquor, valetudo ille abbas cogo saluto role or function vulputate meus indoles iaceo, ne quod, esse illum, letatio lorem SECTOR: AGRICULTURE AND ALLIED secundum, dolus demoveo conventio. Letalis nibh iustum OS are interddfico proprius. In consequat os transverbero bene, erat vulpu SUB-SECTOR: AGRICULTURE performance quadfse nudflla magna. Aptent nulla tate enim esse si sudo erat. OCCUPATION: FIELD CROP CULTIVATION standards that aliquip camur utan sdl as consequat individuals must REFERENCE ID: AGR/Q0203 aptent nisl in vocoloc consequat ispo achieve when facto delore ergo maska forgeuit ALIGNED TO: NCO-2004/6111.20 SOFTWARE carrying out masca pala ergo sacrum lamap Monthly Picks functions in the Sugarcane Cultivator: Sugarcane Cultivator is responsible for the allacum dergo ipso aliquip mia sermi cultivation and harvesting of sugarcane crop in a given piece of land.
    [Show full text]
  • Outlines of a Model of Pure Plantation Economr By
    III. THE MECHANISM OF PLANTATION-TYPE ECONOMIES Outlines of a Model of Pure Plantation Economr By LLOYD BEST I. A PARTIAL TYPOLOGY OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS The larger studyl of which this outline essay forms a part is concerned with the comparative study of economic systems. Following Myrdal2 and Seers3, we have taken the view that economic theory in the underdeveloped regions at any rate, can profit by relaxing its unwitting pre-occupation with the special case of the North Atlantic countries, and by proceeding to a typ- ology of structures4 each having characteristic laws of motion. s Plantation Economy, the type which we have selected for intensive study, falls within the general class of externally-propelled economies.5 Specifically, we isolate Hinterland Economy which can be further distinguished, for ex- ample, from Metropolitan Economy. In the latter, too, the adjustment pro- cess centres on foreign trade and payments but the locus of discretion and choice is at home and it is by this variable that we differentiate. Hinterland economy, indeed, is what is at the discretion of metropolitan economy. The re- lationship between the two may be described, summarily at this point, as mercantilist. In this designation inheres certain specifications regarding what may be called the general institutional framework of collaboration betweeen the two. It will suffice here to note the five major rules of the game, as it were. First, there is the most general provision which defines exclusive spheres of influence of a metropolis and the limitations on external intercourse for the hinterland. In the real world there have been, and still are, many ex- amples of this: the Inter-American System, the British Commonwealth, the French Community, the centrally-planned economies, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology of the Saccharum Spp. (Sugarcane)
    The Biology of the Saccharum spp. (Sugarcane) Version 3: May 2011 This document provides an overview of baseline biological information relevant to risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) forms of the species that may be released into the Australian environment. FOR INFORMATION ON THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE GENE TECHNOLOGY REGULATOR VISIT <HTTP:/WWW.OGTR.GOV.AU> TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 1 TAXONOMY.......................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 ORIGIN AND CULTIVATION............................................................................................ 3 2.1 CENTRE OF DIVERSITY AND DOMESTICATION ........................................................... 3 2.1.1 Commercial hybrid cultivars ............................................................................. 3 2.2 COMMERCIAL USES ............................................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Sugar production ............................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Byproducts of sugar production......................................................................... 5 2.3 CULTIVATION IN AUSTRALIA .......................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Commercial propagation..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agronomy for Sustainable Development
    Agronomy for Sustainable Development Ratooning and perennial staple crops in Malawi. A review --Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: ASDE-D-16-00062R3 Full Title: Ratooning and perennial staple crops in Malawi. A review Article Type: Review Article Keywords: Africa; agroecology; Malawi; perennial staple crops; ratooning Corresponding Author: Paul Rogé, PhD UNITED STATES Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author: Paul Rogé, PhD First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors: Paul Rogé, PhD Sieglinde Snapp Mayamiko Nathaniel Kakwera Leah Mungai Isaac Jambo Brad Peter Order of Authors Secondary Information: Funding Information: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (US) Professor Sieglinde Snapp (OPP1076311) Abstract: The management of staple crops as perennials is a historic legacy and a present-day strategy in some regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, yet perenniality is rarely an agronomic subject. Farmers in Malawi cut annual crops, such as pigeonpea and sorghum, to extend production for more than one growing season. Cassava, a perennial food crop, has a proven track record of abating hunger. Here we review ratooning, as well as the historic role of perennial staple crops in Malawi. Ratooning is a method of harvesting a crop which leaves the roots and the lower parts of the plant uncut to give the ratoon or the stubble crop. This review is completed with interviews with Malawian farmers. The major points follow. The management of staple crops as perennials is underserved by research. Indeed, we retrieved only 86 references on ratooning sorghum and pigeonpea. Of these, 9% and 19% respectively were from the African continent.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, DUPONT TRYSBEN 200 WEED
    r I I G""J3 S{ED CROPS-Continued From Front Side Western Orelon and Westeo" 'Valhinaton-Bhllberrles, Canlberrin and Gooseblrrln: Use same schedule Wllt;"n ' .....on: On alta fescue, Astoria bentgrass, HIghland bentgrass, Kentucky ~rass (Merion blu~ as recommended for Calif . gras~) aI'L°\rc:hardgrass. apply 2 to 4lbs. per acre between October 1 and November &:>. In fields where aSh .. CITRUS: Use only under trees established in the grove for at least 1 year, Time application as indIcated for residues hi"e I'ccumulated from burning straw, use 3 to 4lbs. per acre; spread unburned chaff or straw with specific areas, except applica!ion may be made any time of the year where sprinkler or flood irrillation can a harrow or".:hopper before application. If perennial velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus) is a problem, use 41bs per be timed to activate the herbicide. Established perennial weeds require other speCial control procedures. Do acre. For best results. apply as soon as possible after fall rains start. Established weeds (beyond 2 to 4 leaf not apply un!ler citrus trees that have been subjected tu freezing WIthin 6 months. stag~>,should be removed prior to treatment. Arizona (except Yuma area) and California (except Imperial and Coachella Valleys)-Oranges, Lemons and Well established vigorous stands of spring·planted alta fescue, Kentucky bluegrass and orchardgrass may Grapefruit: Apply 3 to 4lbs. per acre shortly after grove has been Idid·up in fiml form (non·tillage program) be' -eated the followang fall provided the crop is planted before April 1 and treatment is not applied before in late fall or early winter.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Ratooning Management Practices
    Course Name- Field Crops-I Course code- BSCAG-211 Rice Ratooning Management Practices Ratoon cropping is defined as cultivation of the re-growth of rice crop from the stubbles after the harvest of crop or managed for next crop cultivation from the re-growth of the stubbles. The word ratoon probably originated from the Latin word 'retofisus, which means to cut down or mow. Ratoon as a basal sucker for propagation, such as in banana, sugarcane and pineapple. Rice ratooning depends on the ability of dormant buds on the stubble of the first crop to remain viable. Root vigor and distribution also affect ratooning. Rice ratooning is one practical way to increase rice production per unit area and per unit time. In India, research on rice ratooning is practiced in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Assam Bihar, Kerala, Odessa, Tamil Nadu, Utter Pradesh and West Bengal. Advantages of ratooning in rice: Crop duration in ratoon rice is reduced compared to the main plant crop. Ratoon crop takes about 30 days less for maturity compared to the plant crop. There is reduction in cost of cultivation. Input requirement is less in ratoon rice than to main planted rice crop. There is no seed cost since the ratoon crop is produced from the crop stubbles. Panicle production is 70% of the ratoon rice tillers. Disadvantages of ratoon rice: Grain yield per unit area is very poor in ratoon rice as compared to the main plant crop. Rapid leaf senescence of main plant crop causes low ratoon rice yields. Pest and disease occurring and their spread are common both in main and ratoon rice crop.
    [Show full text]
  • POVERTY and the SUGAR INDUSTRY by Belinda Coote
    POVERTY and the SUGAR INDUSTRY by Belinda Coote First publishes 1S87 ©Oxfaml987 ISBN 085598 0818 Typeset by Marshment & White, Bradford on Avon Published by Oxfam 274 Banbury Road Oxford 0X2 7DZ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost my thanks go to those whose lives depend on the sugar industry, especially in Jamaica, Brazil and the Philippines, for their help with the research for this book. I hope that it does some justice to the message that they wished to put across. Whilst many people generously gave their time to help with the research, special thanks are due to Matthias Brown, Simon Harris, Margaret, Anne and Steve Hodges, Tony Hill, Tony Klouda, Horace Levi, Alan Matthews, Simon Maxwell, Reg McQuaid, Roger Plant, Frances Rubin, Tom Schuller and Christopher Stevens, some of whom also commented on earlier drafts. Thanks also to the staff of the National Federation of Sugar Workers, and their volunteers (Negros), the Alternate Resource Center (Davao) and the Magdadaro Foundation (Bukidon), the Social Action Center (Jamaica), the National Sugar Corporation (Jamaica), the International Sugar Organisation, the International Commission for the Co-ordination of Solidarity Among Sugar Workers, the Commission of the European Community, Tate and Lyle, the Overseas Development Institute, the International Labour Organisation and the National Farmers Union for their expert advice and assistance. Particular thanks go to my colleagues in Oxfam, both overseas and in the UK, who provided invaluable information, suggestions and comment. Finally, my special thanks to Tom, for his patience. Belinda Coote April, 1987 Note: To protect their identity, the names of individual sugar workers, whose stories are told in this book, have been changed.
    [Show full text]
  • Panicum Repens) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Torpedo Grass (Panicum repens) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, November 2016 Revised, February 2017 Web Version, 1/6/2020 Photo: Forest & Kim Starr. Licensed under Creative Commons BY 3.0. 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (2011): “Panicum repens is native to Tropical Africa, North Africa and the Mediterranean (sometimes said to be native to Asia).” From Masterson (2007): “Believed native to Europe or Australia Panicum repens is now widely distributed” 1 GISD (2020) reports Panicum repens as native to Albania, Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. CABI (2016) reports the following additional countries as part of the native distribution: Central African Republic, and Niger. From Smith et al. (2004): “Torpedograss [sic] is a terrestrial plant of unresolved origin (Webster 1987); however, according to Holm et al. (1977), it is an Old World species […]” Status in the United States From Texas Invasive Species Institute (2014): “Torpedo grass was first collected in 1876 in Alabama, but is believed to have been introduced to the United States first in Louisiana.” According to Texas Invasive Species Institute (2014), Panicum repens is currently established in Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
    [Show full text]