Abstract
Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied in an experiment at Lawes, south-east Queensland, from 1971 to 1977. There were six grazed treatments (resting for 32 or 44 days combined with grazing for 4 or 16 days, resting for 56 days with grazing for 4 days, and resting for 40 days with grazing for 8 days) and three mown treatments (mown every 36,48 or 60 days). All grazing was with sheep, at a stocking rate equivalent to 20 ha-1 on a year round basis. The experiment was irrigated when necessary to ensure that moisture at least equivalent to the long-term average monthly rainfall was received. There were about 42 lucerne plants m-2 in November 1971 and about 13 plants m-2 in October 1977; thus lucerne survival was good in all treatments, with stands losing about five plants m-2 annum-1. Management effects were small, with survival and row cover becoming slightly better as the interval between grazings or mowings increased from 32 to 60 days. Grazing for four days gave poorer survival than either grazing for 8 or 16 days or mowing. Perennial grass cover was much greater with four-day grazing than in the other treatments. Inspection at the end of the experiment showed nearly all crowns to have moderate symptoms of crown rot caused by Colletotrichum trifolii. The need for critical attention to the interaction between moisture supply, grass invasion and disease accumulation in maintaining lucerne stands in sub-tropical environments is discussed.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Lucerne survival was good in all grazing and mowing treatments.
- Taxon
- lucerne
Medicago sativae0 - Outcome
- lucerne survivale1
- Qualifier
- was good in all treatmentse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e1“thus lucerne survival was good in all treatments, with stands losing about five plants m-2 annum-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Lucerne stands lost about five plants per square metre per year.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- stands losinge1
- Value
- about five plants m-2 annum-1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e1“thus lucerne survival was good in all treatments, with stands losing about five plants m-2 annum-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Survival and row cover became slightly better as the interval between grazings or mowings increased from 32 to 60 days.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- interval between grazings or mowingse2
- Outcome
- survival and row covere2
- Direction
- slightly bettere2
- Qualifier
- Management effects were smalle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e2“Management effects were small, with survival and row cover becoming slightly better as the interval between grazings or mowings increased from 32 to 60 days”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing for four days gave poorer lucerne survival than grazing for 8 or 16 days or mowing.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- Grazing for four dayse3
- Outcome
- survivale3
- Direction
- poorere3
- Comparator
- grazing for 8 or 16 days or mowinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e3“Grazing for four days gave poorer survival than either grazing for 8 or 16 days or mowing”
Claim · model-written summary
Perennial grass cover was much greater with four-day grazing than in the other treatments.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- four-day grazinge4
- Outcome
- Perennial grass covere4
- Direction
- much greatere4
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e4“Perennial grass cover was much greater with four-day grazing than in the other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Nearly all lucerne crowns had moderate symptoms of crown rot caused by Colletotrichum trifolii.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae0
- Interactor
- Colletotrichum trifoliiColletotrichum trifoliie5pathogen
- Outcome
- moderate symptoms of crown rote5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Survival of lucerne plants and changes in the row cover of lucerne in relation to grazing management were studied”
e5“nearly all crowns to have moderate symptoms of crown rot caused by Colletotrichum trifolii”
Claim · model-written summary
Attention to moisture supply, grass invasion and disease accumulation is needed for maintaining lucerne stands in sub-tropical environments.
- Taxon
- lucerneMedicago sativae6
- Outcome
- maintaining lucerne stands in sub-tropical environmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The need for critical attention to the interaction between moisture supply, grass invasion and disease accumulation in maintaining lucerne stands in sub-tropical environments is discussed”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · survival · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
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.