Paper · 2010 · New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research

Fertiliser management for higher productivity of established lucerne pasture

HS Grewal

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
8
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.), a deep‐rooted perennial legume forage, is a significant part of pastures, and is also grown in rotation with wheat to improve the yield and protein content of grains. Adequate supply of key nutrients is one of the important factors in higher productivity and sustainability of lucerne pastures. However, farmers mostly overlook the importance of nutrient management of established lucerne pastures, resulting in poor persistence, low productivity and weed invasion. The aim of this on‐farm field study was to investigate the effects of the combined use of P, K, S and Zn and different sources of Zn on herbage yield, crude protein, nutrient composition, nitrogen fixation, weed invasion and persistence of an established (2 years old) stand of ‘Aurora’ lucerne pasture. A randomised block design was used to test ten fertiliser treatments. The combined use of P, K, S and Zn significantly ( P <0.05) increased herbage yield (139% increase) over 2 years, nitrogen fixation, leaf‐to‐stem ratio, crude protein, nutrient composition (P, K, Ca, S, Zn concentrations), persistence and groundcover, and also led to significant weed suppression (weed biomass decreased from 53 to 69%). Of the three forms of zinc tested, zinc sulphate and zinc‐coated single superphosphate proved superior to zinc oxide. The results suggest that nutrient management is essential for improved persistence, reduced weed invasion and higher sustainable productivity of established lucerne pastures, which is important for livestock production systems and overall profitability of farming systems.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined P, K, S and Zn application significantly increased lucerne herbage yield by 139% over 2 years.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Material
Aurorae1
Treatment
combined use of P, K, S and Zne2
Outcome
herbage yielde2
Direction
increasede2
Value
139%e2

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

“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–38 · show in text ↑
e1

“an established (2 years old) stand of ‘Aurora’ lucerne pasture”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–808 · show in text ↑
e2

“The combined use of P, K, S and Zn significantly ( P <0.05) increased herbage yield (139% increase) over 2 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 880–992 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined P, K, S and Zn application significantly increased nitrogen fixation, leaf-to-stem ratio and crude protein of lucerne.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
combined use of P, K, S and Zne2
Outcome
nitrogen fixation, leaf‐to‐stem ratio, crude proteine2
Direction
increasede2

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

“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–38 · show in text ↑
e2

“The combined use of P, K, S and Zn significantly ( P <0.05) increased herbage yield (139% increase) over 2 years, nitrogen fixation, leaf‐to‐stem ratio, crude protein, nutrient composition (P, K, Ca, S, Zn concentrations), persistence and groundcover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 880–1130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined P, K, S and Zn application significantly increased nutrient composition, persistence and groundcover of lucerne.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
combined use of P, K, S and Zne2
Outcome
nutrient composition (P, K, Ca, S, Zn concentrations), persistence and groundcovere2
Direction
increasede2

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

“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–38 · show in text ↑
e2

“The combined use of P, K, S and Zn significantly ( P <0.05) increased herbage yield (139% increase) over 2 years, nitrogen fixation, leaf‐to‐stem ratio, crude protein, nutrient composition (P, K, Ca, S, Zn concentrations), persistence and groundcover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 880–1130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined P, K, S and Zn application significantly reduced weed biomass in lucerne by 53 to 69%.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
combined use of P, K, S and Zne2
Interactor
weede2weed
Outcome
weed biomasse2
Direction
decreasede2
Value
53 to 69%e2

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

“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–38 · show in text ↑
e2

“The combined use of P, K, S and Zn significantly ( P <0.05) increased herbage yield (139% increase) over 2 years, nitrogen fixation, leaf‐to‐stem ratio, crude protein, nutrient composition (P, K, Ca, S, Zn concentrations), persistence and groundcover, and also led to significant weed suppression (weed biomass decreased from 53 to 69%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 880–1216 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zinc sulphate and zinc-coated single superphosphate proved superior to zinc oxide as zinc sources for lucerne.

Taxon
Medicago sativaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
zinc sulphate and zinc‐coated single superphosphatee3
Outcome
proved superiore3
Direction
proved superiore3
Comparator
zinc oxidee3

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

“Lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–38 · show in text ↑
e3

“Of the three forms of zinc tested, zinc sulphate and zinc‐coated single superphosphate proved superior to zinc oxide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1334 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that nutrient management is essential for improved persistence, reduced weed invasion and higher sustainable productivity of established lucerne pastures.

Taxon
lucerneMedicago sativae4
Outcome
nutrient managemente4

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e4

“The results suggest that nutrient management is essential for improved persistence, reduced weed invasion and higher sustainable productivity of established lucerne pastures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1336–1509 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

21 papers: 16 positive, 5 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

zinc atom · symbiosis · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

zinc atom · quality: general · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

potassium · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

38 papers: 30 positive, 8 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

phosphorus · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

68 papers: 54 positive, 14 negative or no effect

53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

64 papers more in this group

See all 68 papers →

potassium · symbiosis · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

phosphorus · quality: general · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

potassium · quality: general · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.