Paper · 2005 · Forage and Grazinglands

Nitrogen Fertilization Impacts on Stand and Forage Mass of Cool‐Season Grass‐Legume Pastures

Gregory J. Cuomo; Margaretha V. Rudstrom; Dennis G. Johnson; et al.

8
claims
10
verbatim quotes
4
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Combining the benefits of legume N 2 fixation and N fertilization may increase the productivity and profitability of pasture systems. Our objectives were to study the effects of N fertilization on productivity and persistence of legumes in mixtures with cool‐season grasses under rotational stocking with short grazing periods. Twelve N fertilization regimes ranging from 0 to 336 kg of N per ha were applied annually to smooth bromegrass and reed canarygrass in monoculture and mixture with alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clover. Alfalfa was the dominant legume in mixtures with cool season grasses in 1999. As kura clover developed, it became the dominant legume species and by the trials end stands averaged over 70% in mixtures with both smooth bromegrass and reed canarygrass and across N treatments. Nitrogen fertilization did not affect alfalfa stands, but reduced kura clover stands by 17%. Smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures with no N fertilization produced more forage (10.5 Mg DM/ha) than any smooth bromegrass monoculture with N treatment (336 kg of N per ha produced 8.0 Mg DM/ha). Cost of forage mass in smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures was less than 50% of smooth brome monocultures. While N fertilization did not increase forage production in treatments with legumes, legumes were able to maintain vigorous stands with up to 336 kg of N per ha.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alfalfa was the dominant legume in grass mixtures in 1999.

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativae0
Outcome
dominant legumee0
Qualifier
in 1999e0

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 was the dominant legume in mixtures with cool season grasses in 1999”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 537–613 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Kura clover became dominant and averaged over 70% of stands by trial end.

Taxon
kura clovere0
Outcome
standse0
Direction
dominante0
Value
over 70%e0
Qualifier
by the trials ende0

Verbatim

e0

“As kura clover developed, it became the dominant legume species and by the trials end stands averaged over 70% in mixtures with both smooth bromegrass and reed canarygrass and across N treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 615–810 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization did not affect alfalfa stands.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
alfalfa standse0
Direction
did not affecte0

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

“Nitrogen fertilization did not affect alfalfa stands”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 812–864 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization reduced kura clover stands by 17%.

Taxon
kura clovere0
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
kura clover standse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
17%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilization did not affect alfalfa stands, but reduced kura clover stands by 17%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 812–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Unfertilized smooth bromegrass-legume mixtures yielded 10.5 Mg DM/ha, more than fertilized smooth bromegrass monocultures.

Taxon
smooth bromegrassBromus inermise0
Treatment
no N fertilizatione0
Outcome
foragee0
Direction
moree0
Value
10.5 Mg DM/hae0
Qualifier
8.0 Mg DM/hae0
Comparator
smooth bromegrass monoculture with N treatmente0

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

Bromus inermis
Bromus inermis · TaxonDaderot · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures with no N fertilization produced more forage (10.5 Mg DM/ha) than any smooth bromegrass monoculture with N treatment (336 kg of N per ha produced 8.0 Mg DM/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–1098 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Forage mass cost in smooth bromegrass-legume mixtures was below half that of smooth brome monocultures.

Taxon
smooth bromegrassBromus inermise0
Outcome
Cost of forage masse0
Direction
less thane0
Value
50%e0
Comparator
smooth brome monoculturese0

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

Bromus inermis
Bromus inermis · TaxonDaderot · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cost of forage mass in smooth bromegrass‐legume mixtures was less than 50% of smooth brome monocultures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1203 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization did not increase forage production with legumes.

Taxon
alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clovere1
Treatment
N fertilizatione0
Outcome
forage productione0
Direction
did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“N fertilization did not increase forage production in treatments with legumes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1288 · show in text ↑
e1

“mixture with alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–535 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legumes maintained vigorous stands with up to 336 kg of N per ha.

Taxon
alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clovere1
Outcome
vigorous standse0
Qualifier
up to 336 kg of N per hae0

Verbatim

e0

“legumes were able to maintain vigorous stands with up to 336 kg of N per ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1365 · show in text ↑
e1

“mixture with alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and kura clover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–535 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Bromus inermis (smooth brome grass)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

fertilization · organism · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 7 positive, 11 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.