Reprinted/rom SOILS AND FERTILIZERS, Vol. XXIII, I960, 307-310.

THE DOUBTFUL UTILITY OF PRESENT-DAY FIELD EXPERI-

MENTATION AND OTHER DETERMINATIONS INVOLVING
SOIL-PLANT INTERACTIONS
by
N. COLLIS-GEORGE AND B. G. DAVEY
(School of Agriculture, University of Sydney, N.S.W.)
SUMMARY
It is suggested, that since the influence of soil physical and
factors is known to be of great signi-
ficance in determining the biological response of plants, the
time is now appropriate to restrict the number of conven-
tional field experiments and replace some of them with
completely instrumented expenments. Until complete
descriptions of experiments arc available, the quantitative
importance of environment and its interaction with fertilizer
and cultivation practices cannot be determined. With such
information a limited number of field trials would yield more
upplicuble information than the !urge number of uninstru-
mented trials now in existence.
The argument is extended to (I) the limited applicability
of {lOt and glasshouse triuls; (2) the variation between
replicates in field trials as an uid to soil science; (3) the
limited utilization of soil surveys; (4) the poor correlation
between arbitrary soil extracts und field responses; (5) the
misuse of a common test species for assessing comparative
soil fertility in several regions; (6) the poor correlation
between plant analyses and soil deficiencies.
The era of field experimentation, which began in
1834 when J. B. Boussingault set up the first field
experiments at Bechelbonn, Alsace, was placed on
a modern scientific basis by Liebig's report of 1840.
The first field experiments in the form used to-day
were established by Lawes and Gilbert at Rotham-
sted in 1843. Since then the field experimentalist
has sought for and has confirmed the importance of
the essential elements in influencing the production
of crops in the field. However, a great deal of the
evidence for the necessity of specific nutrient
elements has arisen from investigations in the
laboratory and not from field experiments (even
Liebig's startling discoveries of the importance of
N P and Kin the field were based on strong circum-
stantial evidence available prior to his experimen-
tation). The application of the results of field trials
led to large increases in agricultural production,
and the conversion of formerly unproductive or
marginal areas into useful agricultural land.
and have generaliy made the difference between
negligible and economic production.
By comparison, the results of most field experi-
ments do not fall into such a category. Results of
field trials vary from year to year, and although a
statistical analysis may show a significant trend,
as a consequence of one or more treatments, it
does not give an invariable quantitative response
to any one treatment. Often field experiments can
show a qualitative difference in type of response
from season to season.
It has become common practice to persist with
a trial for a number of years in order to obtain a
statistical "'average" result in an attempt to overcome
the unavoidable seasonal variability associated with
field work. Statistical evidence shows that from
20 to 25 %. in the best circumstances, of the total
variation is associated with experimental error.
The most modern techniques of experimentation
have not reduced this error term.
All experimentalists are aware of the importance
of season in determining their results, yet it is
uncommon for them to define the meteorological
environment, even by such modest means as the
Stevenson screen and rain gauge, during the pro-
gress of the trial. The transference of routine
meteorological data from a central station and their
application to experimental sites are unlikely to be
satisfactory even when the aspect and situations
are similar. Yet, from a survey of the literature or
by simple experiment, it can be quickly ascertained
that moisture content of the soil, soil temperature
and the micro-meteorological factors greatly in-
fluence the behaviour of a plant. The uptake of
phosphorus, for example, is certainly dependent on
soil-moisture content, root temperature and solar
radiation, and probably also on the relative-
humidity gradient at the leaf surface. The yield of
cotton has been shown to be largely a function of
It is significant that all of the biological responses the quantity and availability of soil moisture, and
to fertilizer or cultural ameliorations which have in the production of pastures the response to
been adopted into agricultural practice have been nitrogen fertilizers is determined by air temperature
as a consequence of very marked field-trial responses and solar radiation.
307
The number of physical variables (soil and micro-
meteorological) known to control biological
sponses seems to be expanding, whilst the total
number of chemical nutrients seems now to have
been reached. The time is perhaps opportune to
investigate the reasons for the variations encoun-
tered in soil-plant trials, and since methods are now
available for measuring many physical soil and
meteorological parameters it should be possible
either to eliminate part of the error in field trials or
eliminate those soil and climatic parameters inconse-
quential to plant performance.
The number of biological parameters which have
been measured in field trials has been in its turn
limited, and comparison of grain and straw re-
sponses for wheat show that it is very dangerous
to translate results from one wheat crop to another
even if the soil and are constant.
Responses to applied nutrients undoubtedly vary
with the parameter measured, for example the
response to nitrogen in lettuce is more marked on
a wet-weight than on a dry-weight basis. Subtler
differences occur when parameters involving con-
sumer quality (and hence economic returns) are
considered. In the long term, to obtain maximum
useful information from a field trial, it is not suffi-
cient to limit the measured biological parameters
to field weight or even to weight.
On the basis of the preceding two paragraphs, it
could be said that if more environmental para-
meters and more biological parameters were
recorded, fewer tria1s could be carried out with the
available resources. It is one purpose of this paper
to suggest that it is now time to stop the majority
of the "unrecorded" field trials.
The average trial, when analysed, yields the
following type of information: "On site A, on soil B,
with biological variety C, using biological response
parameter D, from the years E to F there was a
statistical average response G H for a certain
treatment." The definitions of A and B are not
necessarily unambiguous, and the economist may
complain that there are not enough treatments to
allow him to produce a production curve! The
information yielded by this trial could only be
rigorously applied to some other site where the
sequence of climate and crops had been identical
and where the soil parameter of consequence to the
crop are the same. The chances of such coincidence
and hence of quantitative applicability are remote.
Unless there is a deficiency, which is so marked
that it virtually prohibits growth, for example, trace
elements in the 90-Mile Desert of South Australia,
or the need for a basic dressing of phosphate on
most Australian soils, there hardly seems any need
for the infonnation given by most trials since it
does not allow logical quantitative conclusions to.
be drawn about future trial responses. As things
stand, when once one trial in an area on one soil
bas been completed, it either shows a deficiency so
marked that no land user can ignore it, regardless
of seasonal changes, or it shows marginal responses
which the trial organizers cannot be sure will
repeated qualitatively, but do know are unlikely to
be repeated quantitatively in, say, the next ten years.
In either case, there would seem to be no need for
successive trials: in the first case, the answer is
complete; in the second case it is uninterpretable
since no one as yet can quantitatively explain
annual variations when "ail" the infonnation is
before him and the series of annual trials concluded,
These remarks are not so stringently applicable
to those trials whose object is to find the cumulative
or residual, effects of treatments on one site. Buf
even in these circwnstances there seems to be only
a weak case for persisting with the trial when the
magnitude of the variation bet\veen treatments is of
the same order as the variation in any one treatment
due to seasonal variables.
The time has come to conduct far fewer trials
involving soil-plant interactions, and, in particular,
almost to eliminate the large number of trials,
which in some cases both in their design and in the
methods have been repeated annually on one site
and are budgeted for almost indefinitely.
In the history of fertilizer and soil-plant inter-
action trials each major discovery has caused a very
careful scrutiny of the results and methods used in
the earlier work. For instance, the discovery of the
importance of the rhizobia] strain and molybdenum
in nitrogen fixation, and then later of the effect of
neutralized superphosphate in obtaining effective
nodulation in the field on acid soils, led to more
careful control in new field experiments, since the
older trials were uncontrolled in these respects. A
further purpose of this paper is to claim that there
is now sufficient evidence concerning soil-plant
interactions as affected by environmental factors of
soil and to suppose that Jack of
recorded information is preventing the interpretation
of the results obtained in most "uncontrolled .. field
trials, and that a new style of experimentation is
needed.
If the premise of the importance of the environ-
mental factors in soil-plant interactions is accepted,
several subsidiary but important conclusions can be
developed concerning other aspects of soil-plant
relationships. (Environment is used in its widest
sense to include all soil physical and micro-meteoro-
logical factors which can influence biological
response.)
(I) The limited applicability of pot and glasshouse
trials. Glasshouse trials, using pots and culture
*-Botanists, in general, have long accepted the consequences of environment on biological response in their thinking, but
only recently have had the techniques to estimate these. Many agricultural experimentalists and some biometridans seem
to have ignored or minimized these consequences.
308
are used as of soil
fertility. The results are mterpretable m the case of
deficiencies which are almost growth-restricting.
The application of glasshouse results in toto,
bO\Vever, is a hazardous procedure. Our hypothesis
leads to the conclusion that the general transference
of such results to field behaviour would be possible
if the relationship of biological responses to environ-
ment were known, and the environments of the
glasshouse and tbe field situation had been deter-
ruined quantitatively. It is unlikely that the trans-
lation will be accomplished for some time. To
transfer evidence from one species grown in a
classhouse pot to another species grown in the field
1\vill perhaps never be accomplished other than by
iempiricaJ correlation, but environmental controls
!will need to be included in this correlation.
!
:2) The variation between replicates (blocks) iu
eld trials as an aid to soil science. In glasshouse
rials, care is taken to ensure uniform soil and, in
articular, a regular moisture regime between aU
eatments, so that it is to be expected that the
ariation between blocks will be much less than in
he field. When analysis of field trials has shown soil
(sub-site) differences between blocks of treatments,
the principal ambition of experimentalists has been
to ensure that this did not invalidate the statistical
response differences between treatments. This
would now seem the ideal opportunity to describe
these sub-site soils in detail and to lay out either a
physically controlled or a physically described trial,
-to find those soil properties contributing to the
observed growth responses between blocks or sub-
-sites. Bearing in mind that the original soil was
almost certainly chosen for its superficial uniformity,
this would lead to the quick elimination, at least, of
those soil properties not relevant to crop perfor-
mance.
{3) The limited utility of soil surveys-except in the
special circumstances of coutrolled or relatively
uniform plant environment. It is a common experience
to :find different soils (in the soil-survey sense)
behaving very similarly in the field, and the reverse
situation of non-distinguishable soils (again in the
survey sense) behaving very differently in terms of
plant behaviour, when lying contiguously in the
eld. This suggests, that, until the criteria control-
ling crop performance are identified (and this will
vary for each crop, the biological paran1eter chosen,
and the degree of maturity at which the plant is
examined) detailed soil surveys can only be of
limited use. In regions, where the environment is
very similar seasonally or where the environment
can be largely controlled, as in irrigation areas,
there will be more chance rif identifying poor and
good soils, but generally this will be done by
studying biological response and its correlation with
miscellaneous soil parameters, not vice versa.
responses, so the relationship between arbitrary
extracts, whether chemical or microbiological, and
field trials will be even more tenuous unless the field
environment remains sensibly constant. The corre-
lations between arbitrary extracts and pot trials
where there is no water stress is always found to be
higher than in the field where water is uncontrolled.
The successful correlation, in Northern Europe
and New Zealand, between extracts and field
responses is almost certainly connected with the
comparatively high degree of reliability in rainfall,
and the fact that some crops are virtually grown at
field-capacity moisture content for a large part of
their life cycle.
(5) The misuse of a common test species for assessing
comparative soil fertility in several regions. A plant
type chosen for its physiological vigour in a certain
environment will be able to detect differences
between soils in that optimum environment. If the
environment is significantly altered from the
optimum for expression of the genetic capabilities
of the type, the principal response of the plant will
be to the change in its environment rather than to
soil treatment by fertilizers. Field trials conducted
with the same test species, in an attempt to compare
the fertility of soils in different regions, will more
reflect the difference between the environments than
the difference in field response to fertilizer treat-
ments. There is no reason why there should be a
common measure of fertility; the soils of Northern
Europe, used for successful growing of rye, have
a fair fertility as measured by rye grain in that
environment, but would have a poor fertility as
measured by wheat.
(6) poor correlatiOn between plant analyses and
soil deficiencies. The level of a given nutrient
element in a healthy field crop varies widely during
the season and, furthermore, the magnitude of the
variation differs in different parts of the plant.
Some of this variation can be correlated qualita-
tively with meteorological data, since plant physio-
logists are aware that "bright", "dull", "cool" or
"hot" weather influences the production and
persistence of visual deficiency symptoms and the
chemical constitution of plants. The majority of
correlations obtained between total plant analyses
(or arbitrary extracts of plants) and field observa-
tions of productiveness or visual symptoms of
nutrient deficiencies have lacked precision, and
attempts to set "critical levels" have given variable
limits of qualitative use in diagnosis.
CONCLUSION
The interpretation of many field trials involving
biological parameters would appear, after a century,
to have come to a stalemate for Jack of recorded
"control" or environmental data. The establish-
ment of further field, fertilizer and soil-amelioration
(4) The poor correlation between arbitrary laboratory trials, glasshouse trials, assay procedures, and
chemical extracts or micro-biological assays and field detailed soil surveys based an non-biological para-
responses. Just as glasshouse trials at near-optimum meters can only lead to a limited advance in our
moisture regimes are not easily related with field appreciation of soil-plant relationships. Until we
309
use a more comprehensive style of experimentation
and recording to determine the principal soil, site
and micro-meteorological parameters controlling
biological response we cannot elucidate the impor-
tance of, and the inter-relationship between, these
factors.
It is not easy to define the cost of field trials, as
the salaries of officers, who have other duties as
well as those concerned with trials, are involved,
whether directly in the field, or in laboratories and
offices. There is no doubt that in alone
the total annual charge is in excess of A1 million:
and our argument indicates that the majority of tb;
information so obtained is either already known or
not capable of quantitative application because of
lack of data to interpret it.
This analysis bas, of necessity, been limited to the.
general field of soil science and acknowledgment
must be made to the many agricultural scientists.
who have helped to crysta1Iize the opinions expressed
here.
Printing Work.r, York &: London-54165
310