Abstract
The potato leafhopper (PLH), Empoasca fabae (Harris), is a major pest of alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., in the north central USA, yet little information exists regarding its effects on forage quality. Three field trials were conducted in 1984 and 1985 to determine the consequence of PLH feeding on chemical composition and nutritional quality of alfalfa stem and leaf components. A factorial arrangement of four densities of PLH adults (0, 50, 100, and 200 m −2 ) and two infestation periods (1 and 14 d after first harvest) was replicated four times in a randomized complete‐block design. Weekly plant samples were collected for assays of in vitro digestibility, neutral‐detergent fiber (NDF), and crude protein. Total herbage digestibility did not differ among plots. Digestibility of the stem component was actually enhanced (up to 3.0% change) by severe PLH feeding. The leaf component also was slightly higher in digestibility (up to 2.2% change) under extreme PLH‐induced stress. Total herbage NDF concentration was largely unaffected at harvest by levels of PLH‐induced injury. Leaf protein concentration was reduced (about 8.2% change) in most infested plots but stem protein concentration was maintained or enhanced (up to 9.1% change) with increasing levels of PLH‐induced injury. Comparisons of chlorotic vs. nonchlorotic leaves suggested that visible symptoms of PLH feeding did not necessarily indicate differences in chemical composition of the herbage. The small effects of PLH feeding on total herbage forage quality indicate that PLH control programs should be based primarily on the likelihood of reductions in biomass or nutrient yield, rather than the likelihood of reduced 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Total herbage digestibility did not differ among plots.
- Taxon
- Alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Outcome
- Total herbage digestibilitye0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total herbage digestibility did not differ among plots”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe PLH feeding enhanced stem digestibility by up to 3.0%.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- severe PLH feedinge0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- Digestibility of the stem componente0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 3.0%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Digestibility of the stem component was actually enhanced (up to 3.0% change) by severe PLH feeding”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf digestibility rose by up to 2.2% under extreme PLH stress.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- extreme PLH‐induced stresse0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- leaf component also was slightly higher in digestibilitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.2%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The leaf component also was slightly higher in digestibility (up to 2.2% change) under extreme PLH‐induced stress”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbage NDF was largely unaffected by PLH injury at harvest.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- PLH‐induced injurye0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- Total herbage NDF concentratione0
- Direction
- largely unaffectede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total herbage NDF concentration was largely unaffected at harvest by levels of PLH‐induced injury”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Infestation reduced leaf protein by about 8.2%.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- infested plotse0
- Outcome
- Leaf protein concentratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 8.2%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf protein concentration was reduced (about 8.2% change) in most infested plots”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem protein was maintained or enhanced with greater PLH injury.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- PLH‐induced injurye0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- stem protein concentratione0
- Direction
- maintained or enhancede0
- Value
- 9.1%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“stem protein concentration was maintained or enhanced (up to 9.1% change) with increasing levels of PLH‐induced injury”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
Visible chlorosis did not necessarily indicate herbage chemical differences.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- chemical composition of the herbagee0
- Direction
- did not necessarily indicate differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“visible symptoms of PLH feeding did not necessarily indicate differences in chemical composition of the herbage”
t0“Alfalfa”
Claim · model-written summary
PLH control should focus on biomass or nutrient yield losses.
- Taxon
- AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Interactor
- PLHe0pest
- Outcome
- PLH control programs should be based primarily on the likelihood of reductions in biomass or nutrient yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PLH control programs should be based primarily on the likelihood of reductions in biomass or nutrient yield”
t0“Alfalfa”
The same questions in other papers
infection · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.