Abstract
abstract Alaflfa ( Medicago sativa L.), alfalfa‐brome ( Bromus inermis Leyss. ), red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.), red clover‐timothy ( Phleum pratense L.), sweetclover ( Melilotus alba Desr.), and sweetclover‐timothy were maintained at Rosemount, Minn. under three management systems— removal of forage from the plots, mowing and leaving forage, and chopping and leaving forage. Within each management system, comparisons were made of one, two, and three cuttings per year. Uncut plots were included in each replicate. After 2 to 5 years of the management and cutting treatments, corn ( Zea mays , L.) was grown for 2 years to determine residual effect of treatments on corn production using seven methods of land preparation. Comparison of forage removal with nonremoval—Removal reduced stands of timothy but not those of other forages, slightly increased weed control, reduced soil fertility, and reduced grain production 636 to 1168 kg/ha in the first 2 years of corn. Comparison of mowing with chopping—Mowing and chopping effects were similar on forage stand, forage growth, weed control, and corn yield except that chopping sweetclover resulted in higher corn yields than mowing. Comparison of cutting treatments—Cutting favored growth of alfalfa, red clover, and foxtail ( Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. and viridis (L.) Beauv.) and injured bromegrass, timothy, and quackgrass ( Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.). Uncut bromegrass‐alfalfa gave the densest ground cover and best weed control. Without bromegrass or timothy present, cutting was essential for weed control, and two cuttings were best. Comparison of herbicide‐tillage methods of land preparation for corn—Plowing in July and spraying in September gave best weed control.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Forage removal reduced timothy stands.
- Taxon
- timothy
Phleum pratensee0 - Treatment
- Removale0
- Outcome
- stands of timothye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- nonremovalt0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Removal reduced stands of timothy but not those of other forages”
t0“Comparison of forage removal with nonremoval”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage removal did not reduce stands of other forages.
Verbatim
e0“Removal reduced stands of timothy but not those of other forages”
t0“Comparison of forage removal with nonremoval”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage removal slightly increased weed control.
Verbatim
e0“Removal reduced stands of timothy but not those of other forages, slightly increased weed control”
t0“Forages”
e1“Comparison of forage removal with nonremoval”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage removal reduced soil fertility.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Removal reduced stands of timothy but not those of other forages, slightly increased weed control, reduced soil fertility”
t0“Forages”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage removal reduced corn grain production by 636 to 1168 kg/ha in the first two years.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- Removalt0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 636 to 1168 kg/hae0
- Qualifier
- first 2 years of corne0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced grain production 636 to 1168 kg/ha in the first 2 years of corn”
t0“Comparison of forage removal with nonremoval”
Claim · model-written summary
Mowing and chopping had similar effects on forage stand, forage growth and weed control.
Verbatim
e0“Mowing and chopping effects were similar on forage stand, forage growth, weed control, and corn yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Mowing and chopping had similar effects on corn yield overall.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Mowinge0
- Outcome
- corn yielde0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- choppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mowing and chopping effects were similar on forage stand, forage growth, weed control, and corn yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Chopping sweetclover produced higher corn yields than mowing.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- chopping sweetclovere0
- Outcome
- corn yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- mowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chopping sweetclover resulted in higher corn yields than mowing”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting favored growth of alfalfa, red clover and foxtail.
- Taxon
- alfalfa, red clover, and foxtail
Medicago sativa.jpg?width=60)
Alopecurus pratensis
Trifolium pratensee0 - Treatment
- Cuttinge0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- favorede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Cutting favored growth of alfalfa, red clover, and foxtail”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting injured bromegrass, timothy and quackgrass.
- Taxon
- bromegrass, timothy, and quackgrasse0
- Treatment
- Cuttinge0
- Outcome
- bromegrass, timothy, and quackgrasse0
- Direction
- injurede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Cutting favored growth of alfalfa, red clover, and foxtail ( Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. and viridis (L.) Beauv.) and injured bromegrass, timothy, and quackgrass”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncut bromegrass-alfalfa provided the densest ground cover.
Verbatim
e0“Uncut bromegrass‐alfalfa gave the densest ground cover and best weed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncut bromegrass-alfalfa provided the best weed control.
Verbatim
e0“Uncut bromegrass‐alfalfa gave the densest ground cover and best weed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Without bromegrass or timothy, cutting was essential for weed control.
Verbatim
e0“Without bromegrass or timothy present, cutting was essential for weed control, and two cuttings were best”
Claim · model-written summary
Two cuttings were best for weed control without bromegrass or timothy.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Without bromegrass or timothy present, cutting was essential for weed control, and two cuttings were best”
Claim · model-written summary
July plowing and September spraying gave the best weed control before corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Plowing in July and spraying in Septembere0
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plowing in July and spraying in September gave best weed control”
t0“Crop Production”
e1“reduced grain production 636 to 1168 kg/ha in the first 2 years of corn”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Trifolium pratense (red clover)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
application · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →pruning · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 papers →pruning · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 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.