Paper · 1996 · jpa

No‐Till Seeding of Grazing‐Tolerant Alfalfa as Influenced by Grass Suppression, Fungicide, and Insecticide

C. S. Hoveland; R. G. Durham; J. H. Bouton

11
claims
15
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

No‐till planting of grazing‐tolerant alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) offers an opportunity to improve the nutritive quality and seasonal production of endophyte‐infected tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) but grass competition and pest problems reduce dependable alfalfa establishment in the southeastern USA. The objectives of this research were to study the following effects on no‐till establishment and yield of ‘Alfagraze’ alfalfa: (i) grass suppression and insecticide and fungicide application with September‐planted alfalfa, and (ii) fungicide application date for September and March plantings. Sixteen field experiments were conducted in the limestone valley area near Calhoun, GA, and in the mountains at Blairsville, GA, over 3 yr. Alfagraze alfalfa was no‐till planted in September and paraquat (used as a herbicide) grass suppressant, vinclozolin [3‐(3,5‐dichlorophenyl)‐5‐ethenyl‐5‐methyl‐2,4‐oxazolidinedione] fungicide, and chlorpyrifos [O,O‐diethyl O‐(3,5,6‐trichloro‐2‐pyridinyl) phosphorothioate] insecticide were applied alone and in all combinations to compare alfalfa stand and yield with that of a nontreated check. The effect of fungicide application dates on alfalfa forage yield and stand when planted in September or in March were determined in additional experiments. Sod suppression in September was necessary to obtain good alfalfa stands. Insecticide application had little effect on yield. In 2 out of 3 yr at both locations, there was a significant ( P < 0.05) response to suppressant and fungicide. For September‐planted alfalfa, monthly fungicide application improved forage yield, indicating substantial control of fungal diseases, primarily crown and stem rot caused by Sclerotinia trifoliorum Eriks. In 2 out of 3 yr at two locations, alfalfa yields increased from 48 to 89% with monthly fungicide application on September plantings. March no‐till planting resulted in poorer stands and lower alfalfa yields than September planting. Grass suppression was beneficial in no‐till planting of alfalfa in northern Georgia. Autumn was superior to winter plant‐ing despite potential disease losses in no‐till planted alfalfa. Research Question No‐till seeding of alfalfa into grass sods is generally less dependable than planting in prepared seedbeds, probably because of grass competition and greater pest problems. The present study evaluated the effects on establishment and yield of no‐till seeded Alfagraze alfalfa at two north Georgia locations of: (i) grass suppression, insecticide, and fungicide application on September‐planted alfalfa, and (ii) fungicide application date on alfalfa establishment and yield from September and March plantings. Literature Summary No‐till seeding of alfalfa in grass sods in the upper South and lower Midwest of the USA is generally more successful when carried out in late winter or spring than late summer or autumn because of less disease loss, primarily crown and stem rot. The impact of crown and stem rot on stand and forage yield of alfalfa no‐till seeded in autumn vs. late winter has not been determined in the lower Southeastern USA. Grass suppression has been especially helpful in no‐till seeding of alfalfa but insecticide application has given only small improvement. Study Description Sixteen field experiments were conducted over 3 yr at Blairsville (2300 ft elevation) and Calhoun (640 ft) in northern Georgia. Alfagraze alfalfa was no‐till planted in September and paraquat grass suppressant, vinclozolin fungicide, and chlorpyrifos insecticide were applied alone and in all combinations to compare alfalfa stand and yield with that of an untreated check. Another set of experiments studied the effect of fungicide application dates on alfalfa stand and yield when planted in September and March. Applied Questions How did grass suppression affect no‐till planted alfalfa? As in previous studies, grass suppression with a herbicide was important in getting good alfalfa stands and forage yields. Disease control with a fungicide was effective only where the grass was suppressed, possibly because nonsuppressed grass continued to grow and provide a more favorable environment for fungal development and, in the case of crown and stem rot, also may have prevented direct contact of the fungicide with the sclerotia. How did insecticide affect no‐till planted alfalfa? Insecticide applications had little effect on stands or yield, indicating that insects were a minor factor. How did fungicide application affect alfalfa? Monthly fungicide application was used to assess the impact of disease on establishment and yield of alfalfa. We assumed that the major effect of the fungicide was on limiting crown and stem rot development so the yields of untreated sod may indicate the losses incurred from this disease. In 2 out of 3 yr at two locations, alfalfa yield losses ranged from 28% in a drought year to 89% in a more normal rainfall year. The lack of response to fungicide application during 1 yr at both locations indicates that weather and the sclerotia reservoir in the soil greatly affect development of crown and stem rot. What was the effect of September vs. March planting dates? September plantings were superior. The lower yields from March planting at Calhoun may be a result of hot, dry late spring and summer weather which often occurs, making it difficult for alfalfa seedlings to compete with tall fescue. In contrast, the cooler temperature and higher rainfall of the mountain location should have been more favorable but excessive competition from volunteer weeds resulted in no advantage for March planting. Recommendation Risk is inherent in no‐till establishment of alfalfa. In areas with a history of fungal diseases in legumes, it may be necessary to plant alfalfa in late winter. However, autumn planting offers the potential of better stands and substantially higher first year forage yields. This appears to be especially true at lower elevations in the lower southeastern USA where hot and dry late spring and summer conditions often reduce late winter planted alfalfa stands and forage yields.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

September sod suppression improved alfalfa stands.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
Sod suppression in Septembere0
Outcome
alfalfa standse0
Direction
goode0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sod suppression in September was necessary to obtain good alfalfa stands.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1303–1376 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide had little effect on alfalfa yield.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
Insecticide applicatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
little effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Insecticide application had little effect on yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1377–1428 · show in text ↑
t0

“Alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Suppressant and fungicide gave significant responses in two of three years at both sites.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
suppressant and fungicidee0
Outcome
responsee0
Value
P < 0.05e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 2 out of 3 yr at both locations, there was a significant ( P < 0.05) response to suppressant and fungicide.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1539 · show in text ↑
t0

“Alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Monthly fungicide improved September-planted alfalfa forage yield.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
monthly fungicide applicatione0
Interactor
Sclerotinia trifoliorum Eriks.Sclerotinia trifoliorume0pathogen
Outcome
forage yielde0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Sclerotinia trifoliorum
Sclerotinia trifoliorum · InteractorMary Ann Hansen (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ) · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For September‐planted alfalfa, monthly fungicide application improved forage yield, indicating substantial control of fungal diseases, primarily crown and stem rot caused by Sclerotinia trifoliorum Eriks.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1744 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Monthly fungicide raised September alfalfa yield 48 to 89% in two of three years.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
monthly fungicide applicatione0
Outcome
alfalfa yieldse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
48 to 89%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 2 out of 3 yr at two locations, alfalfa yields increased from 48 to 89% with monthly fungicide application on September plantings.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1745–1878 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

March planting produced poorer stands and lower yields than September planting.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
March no‐till plantinge0
Outcome
stands and lower alfalfa yieldse0
Direction
poorere0
Comparator
September plantinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“March no‐till planting resulted in poorer stands and lower alfalfa yields than September planting.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1879–1977 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grass suppression improved alfalfa forage yields.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
grass suppression with a herbicidee0
Outcome
forage yieldse0
Direction
goode0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grass suppression with a herbicide was important in getting good alfalfa stands and forage yields.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3895–3993 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide disease control worked only with suppressed grass.

Treatment
fungicidee0
Outcome
Disease controle0
Direction
effectivee0
Qualifier
only where the grass was suppressede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Disease control with a fungicide was effective only where the grass was suppressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3994–4076 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide did not raise yield at either site in one year.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
fungicide applicatione0
Outcome
responsee0
Direction
lack of responsee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The lack of response to fungicide application during 1 yr at both locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4938–5013 · show in text ↑
t0

“Alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–43 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease-associated alfalfa yield losses ranged from 28% to 89%.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Outcome
yield lossese0
Value
28%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“alfalfa yield losses ranged from 28% in a drought year to 89% in a more normal rainfall year.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4844–4937 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Autumn planting is favored for better stands and first-year yield.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Outcome
autumn planting offers the potential of better stands and substantially higher first year forage yieldse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“autumn planting offers the potential of better stands and substantially higher first year forage yields.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 5810–5914 · show in text ↑
t0

“Alfalfa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–43 · show in text ↑

fungicide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

11 papers: 7 positive, 4 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

insecticide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

25 papers: 17 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

herbicide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

52 papers: 26 positive, 26 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

tillage · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

19 papers: 11 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

fungicide · Sclerotinia trifoliorum · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.