Abstract
Abstract Forage quality of alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) often is higher in water‐deficit‐stressed plants than in nonstressed plants. At least part of the improvement could result from a delay in plant development due to the water stress. The objective of this study was to determine forage quality response of alfalfa to water stress and to relate this to corresponding changes in plant maturity, phonological development, and growth. ‘Apollo II’ alfalfa was grown in 100‐L containers set into the ground and protected by a movable rain shelter. Plants were watered either weekly or twice weekly to 112,100, 88, 76, and 64% of field capacity during 2 yr. Regrowth herbage was harvested at five weekly intervals beginning 3 wk after the initial cut. Plants were divided into stem bases (portion of stems below and including the sixth node), stem tops, and leaves before forage quality analyses were conducted. Plant maturity decreased linearly with increasing water stress. Averaged over the harvests, leaf‐to‐stem ratio (LSR) increased from 0.60 in the well‐watered treatments to 0.72 in the most severely stressed treatment. Delayed plant maturity and node number did not account fully for the increase in LSR under water stress. In vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) in stems, which increased by about 9% under water stress, was largely accounted for by delayed plant maturity. In stem bases, crude protein (CP) concentration increased by 11% with increasing water stress, even after accounting for differences in plant maturity. Cellulose concentration, expressed on a cell‐wall (CW) basis, decreased whereas CW hemicellulose concentration increased with water stress in both leaves and stems, and these changes were not entirely attributable to differences in plant maturity and growth. Thus, the slowing of plant maturation and growth during water stress accounted for much, but not all, of the changes in forage quality.
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
Maturity declined linearly as water stress increased.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- Plant maturitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant maturity decreased linearly with increasing water stress.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf-to-stem ratio rose from 0.60 to 0.72 across watering treatments.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- most severely stressed treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf‐to‐stem ratio (LSR)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.72e0
- Qualifier
- 0.60e0
- Comparator
- well‐watered treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf‐to‐stem ratio (LSR) increased from 0.60 in the well‐watered treatments to 0.72 in the most severely stressed treatment”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed maturity and node number did not fully explain increased leaf-to-stem ratio under stress.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Outcome
- increase in LSRe0
- Qualifier
- Delayed plant maturity and node number did not account fullye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Delayed plant maturity and node number did not account fully for the increase in LSR under water stress.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem IVDDM rose about 9% under water stress, largely because maturation was delayed.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- stemse0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- In vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9%e0
- Qualifier
- delayed plant maturitye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) in stems, which increased by about 9% under water stress, was largely accounted for by delayed plant maturity.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude protein concentration in stem bases increased 11% with water stress after maturity adjustment.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- stem basese0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- crude protein (CP) concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 11%e0
- Qualifier
- even after accounting for differences in plant maturitye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In stem bases, crude protein (CP) concentration increased by 11% with increasing water stress, even after accounting for differences in plant maturity.”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Cell-wall cellulose concentration declined with water stress in leaves and stems.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- leaves and stemse0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- Cellulose concentratione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cellulose concentration, expressed on a cell‐wall (CW) basis, decreased whereas CW hemicellulose concentration increased with water stress in both leaves and stems”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Cell-wall hemicellulose concentration increased with water stress in leaves and stems.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Organ / stage
- leaves and stemse0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- CW hemicellulose concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CW hemicellulose concentration increased with water stress in both leaves and stems”
t0“Alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
drought · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →drought · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.