Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
based on the performance of conventional rice phenotypes, not necessarily appli-
cable for SRI phenotypes, which have larger root systems that do not degenerate
from hypoxia induced by flooding (Kar et al. 1974). Farmers using SRI methods have
achieved yields double the world average in environments as contrasting as moun-
tainous northeastern Afghanistan (Thomas and Ramzi 2011) and the arid Timbuktu
region of Mali (Styger et al. 2011), and in many kinds of agroecosystems in between.
• Sheehyet al.(2004)concludedthat“SRIhasnomajorroleinimprovingricepro-
duction generally,” based on Dobermann's modeling and on the results of three
small test plots in China, which did not follow a proper protocol for SRI. The
authors' conclusion did not consider the substantial body of research by Chinese
rice scientists that had already confirmed SRI effectiveness (
http://sri.ciifad.cor-
• SomeotherricescientistsarguedthatSRIshouldnotevenbeevaluated(Sinclair
2004; Sinclair and Cassman 2004). They contended that reported outstanding
results from SRI practices were not possible because they conflicted with “known
principles”—so any resources invested in assessing SRI would be a waste of funds.
The principles that were referred to, however, have been empirically contradicted
by research of Chinese and Indian scientists (Lin et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2009;
Thakur, Uphoff and Antony 2010; this controversy is discussed in Uphoff 2012).
• Skeptics'rejectionofSRIwasbasedinpartontheirinsistencethat“super-yields”
with SRI methods reported from Madagascar were beyond a “biological maxi-
mum” calculated from computerized crop modeling (Sheehy et al. 2004). As noted
above, however, such yields have been achieved also in India, confirmed by district,
state, and national officials using standard methods of measurement. In any case,
attention should have been focused on differences in
average
yield, which were
clearly significant; the controversy engendered over highest yields was a diversion.
• ReasonsforobjectingtoevenevaluatingSRIcanonlybeclariiedbythosescien-
tists who have rejected even investigating alternative methods for rice production.
While there was controversy about SRI within the scientific community (Surridge
2004), demonstrations and in-field assessments of the new crop management meth-
ods proceeded and expanded during the 2000s. Even without the approval or accep-
tance of SRI in theory or practice by scientists, who influenced decisions by donor
agencies and foundations not to fund SRI evaluation or extension, the new method-
ology nevertheless began to spread, country to country and within countries.
Expansion of SRI Methods within National
Production Systems
Scientific resistance to SRI has ebbed in recent years, even if it has not been withdrawn.
Negative journal articles attempting to “debunk” SRI have ceased, perhaps because
governments and rice researchers in countries where two-thirds of the world's rice is
Search WWH ::
Custom Search