Kravchenko Alexandra N, Snapp Sieglinde S, Robertson G Philip
Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824;
Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 31;114(5):926-931. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1612311114. Epub 2017 Jan 17.
Knowledge of production-system performance is largely based on observations at the experimental plot scale. Although yield gaps between plot-scale and field-scale research are widely acknowledged, their extent and persistence have not been experimentally examined in a systematic manner. At a site in southwest Michigan, we conducted a 6-y experiment to test the accuracy with which plot-scale crop-yield results can inform field-scale conclusions. We compared conventional versus alternative, that is, reduced-input and biologically based-organic, management practices for a corn-soybean-wheat rotation in a randomized complete block-design experiment, using 27 commercial-size agricultural fields. Nearby plot-scale experiments (0.02-ha to 1.0-ha plots) provided a comparison of plot versus field performance. We found that plot-scale yields well matched field-scale yields for conventional management but not for alternative systems. For all three crops, at the plot scale, reduced-input and conventional managements produced similar yields; at the field scale, reduced-input yields were lower than conventional. For soybeans at the plot scale, biological and conventional managements produced similar yields; at the field scale, biological yielded less than conventional. For corn, biological management produced lower yields than conventional in both plot- and field-scale experiments. Wheat yields appeared to be less affected by the experimental scale than corn and soybean. Conventional management was more resilient to field-scale challenges than alternative practices, which were more dependent on timely management interventions; in particular, mechanical weed control. Results underscore the need for much wider adoption of field-scale experimentation when assessing new technologies and production-system performance, especially as related to closing yield gaps in organic farming and in low-resourced systems typical of much of the developing world.
对生产系统性能的了解很大程度上基于试验田尺度的观测。尽管试验田尺度和田间尺度研究之间的产量差距已得到广泛认可,但其程度和持续性尚未得到系统的实验检验。在密歇根州西南部的一个地点,我们进行了一项为期6年的试验,以测试试验田尺度的作物产量结果用于得出田间尺度结论的准确性。在一项随机完全区组设计试验中,我们比较了常规管理与替代管理(即减少投入和基于生物的有机管理)对玉米 - 大豆 - 小麦轮作的影响,试验使用了27块商业规模的农田。附近的试验田尺度试验(0.02公顷至1.0公顷的地块)提供了试验田与田间性能的比较。我们发现,对于常规管理,试验田尺度的产量与田间尺度的产量匹配良好,但对于替代系统则不然。对于所有三种作物,在试验田尺度上,减少投入管理和常规管理产生的产量相似;在田间尺度上,减少投入管理的产量低于常规管理。对于试验田尺度的大豆,生物管理和常规管理产生的产量相似;在田间尺度上,生物管理的产量低于常规管理。对于玉米,在试验田和田间尺度试验中,生物管理的产量均低于常规管理。小麦产量似乎比玉米和大豆受试验尺度的影响更小。常规管理比替代管理对田间尺度挑战的适应能力更强,替代管理更依赖及时的管理干预,特别是机械除草。结果强调,在评估新技术和生产系统性能时,尤其是在缩小有机农业以及许多发展中世界典型的资源匮乏系统中的产量差距方面,需要更广泛地采用田间尺度试验。