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
Claim · model-written summary
September sod suppression improved alfalfa stands.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“Sod suppression in September was necessary to obtain good alfalfa stands.”
Claim · model-written summary
Insecticide had little effect on alfalfa yield.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- Insecticide applicatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- little effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“Insecticide application had little effect on yield.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Suppressant and fungicide gave significant responses in two of three years at both sites.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“In 2 out of 3 yr at both locations, there was a significant ( P < 0.05) response to suppressant and fungicide.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Monthly fungicide improved September-planted alfalfa forage yield.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago 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.


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.”
Claim · model-written summary
Monthly fungicide raised September alfalfa yield 48 to 89% in two of three years.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago 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.

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.”
Claim · model-written summary
March planting produced poorer stands and lower yields than September planting.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“March no‐till planting resulted in poorer stands and lower alfalfa yields than September planting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grass suppression improved alfalfa forage yields.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“grass suppression with a herbicide was important in getting good alfalfa stands and forage yields.”
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”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide did not raise yield at either site in one year.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“The lack of response to fungicide application during 1 yr at both locations”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease-associated alfalfa yield losses ranged from 28% to 89%.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0 - Outcome
- yield lossese0
- Value
- 28%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Verbatim
e0“alfalfa yield losses ranged from 28% in a drought year to 89% in a more normal rainfall year.”
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn planting is favored for better stands and first-year yield.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago 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.

Verbatim
e0“autumn planting offers the potential of better stands and substantially higher first year forage yields.”
t0“Alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
fungicide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →insecticide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →herbicide · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →tillage · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →fungicide · Sclerotinia trifoliorum · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.