1. Agroecological Strategies for Raising
Crop Productivity with Reduced Inputs,
with Less Water Requirement, and with
Buffering of Climate-Change Stresses
Norman Uphoff, Cornell University, USA
ECHO 20th Annual Agricultural Conference
Ft. Myers, FL - December 10, 2013

2. In the 21st century, we will need to learn how to
PRODUCE MORE FROM LESS
This paradoxical relationship will be needed
for sustainable agricultural development
Amount of arable LAND per capita is declining,
with less and less reliable supplies of WATER,
and higher ENERGY costs and prices of INPUTS
We need to protect and maintain the quality of
our NATURAL RESOURCES -- soil, water, air -and to ensure broad access to APPROPRIATE
TECHNOLOGIES to reduce hunger & poverty

3. Green Revolution technologies from 1960s
contributed to meeting food needs in past
century – but they are becoming less relevant
to the emerging conditions of the 21st century
What was the central thrust of GR technology?
• Development and use of NEW VARIETIES,
• Application of more EXTERNAL INPUTS,
• Provision of more/reliable WATER, plus
• Agrochemical CROP PROTECTION
How many know the book by Francis Chaboussou,
Healthy Crops: A New Agricultural Revolution (1985 in
French, English translation 2004)? Presents his theory
of ‘trophobiosis’ - formulated by an INRA ag scientist

4. Green Revolution strategy has come to be seen as
the necessary, indeed the best or the only way to
achieve higher crop yields and more productivity
However, this seeds + fertilizer (+ water) strategy
has been encountering diminishing returns

5. Diminishing returns to agrochemical inputs
are being experienced clearly in China
At the start of China’s Green Revolution, farmers’
agronomic N-use efficiency was 15-20 kg rice/kg N
• By 1981-83, this had fallen to 9.1 kg rice/kg N
(Lin, 1991)
• By 2001, it was 6.4 kg rice/kg N in Zhejiang
province (Wang et al., 2001)
• By 2006, this ratio was 5-10 kg rice/kg N
(Peng et al., 2006) – and it is still declining
S.B. Peng et al., “Improving N fertilization in rice… “
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30 (2010), 649-656.

6. At the same time, nitrate (NO3) levels in
China’s groundwater supplies have been
rising rapidly, from overuse of N fertilizer
Already 10 years ago, in many parts of China,
level of NO3 in groundwater was >300 ppm
-- in the US, the EPA allows only 50 ppm
J.L. Hatfield, “Nitrogen over-use, under-use and efficiency.”
Paper presented to 4th International Crop Science Congress,
Brisbane, Australia, September, 2004
This kind of agricultural practice has
unacceptable consequences and a bleak future

7. Fortunately, there are alternatives to this
genocentric, input-dependent strategy,
ones that are very productive and economic:
AGROECOLOGICAL METHODOLOGIES
These methodologies (methods, practices)
mobilize and utilize the biological potentials
and ecological processes and dynamics that
already exist within crop plants and that are
inherent in the soil systems within which
plants grow

8. Agroecological methods promote the
growth of more productive PHENOTYPES
from any given GENOTYPE, i.e., variety
-- does everyone know the difference?
HOW? by managing agroecosystems more
productively -- rather than by focusing on
and mostly relying on external inputs
HOW CAN THIS BE DONE? By improving
crops’ growing environments -- both below
and above ground – this focuses on the
E factor in geneticists’ symbolic equation:
P = ƒ G + E + GxE

9. Agroecological practices modify and
optimize the management of
plants, soil, water and nutrients,
in ways that mobilize the services of the
PLANT-SOIL MICROBIOME, i.e., the
multitude of beneficial microorganisms
that live in, on and around plants
Much as beneficial microorganisms
live in, on and around our human bodies,
in what is called the human microbiome

10. Agroecological approaches include:
• Agroforestry
• Conservation agriculture (CA)
• Holistic land and livestock
management (Allan Savory)
• Integrated pest management (IPM)
• Integrated crop-fish culture
• System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
• System of Crop Intensification (SCI)
Today we focus on the latter: SRI and SCI

11. SRI by changing management of the plants,
soil, water and nutrients for growing rice:
A. Induces plants to have larger, healthier
and better functioning ROOT SYSTEMS,
B. Nurtures soil systems that have larger
populations of SOIL ORGANISMS which
are more biodiverse and more active
Both roots & soil biota make crucial
contributions to crop production, and
they can reduce the current demand for
both water and nitrogen fertilizer

12. Evidence on water saving and productivity:
A meta-analysis of 29 published studies (2006-2013), with
results from 251 comparison trials across 8 countries
Water use: SRI mgmt
12.03 million liters ha-1
Standard
15.33 million liters ha-1
SRI reduction in total water use
= 22%
SRI reduction in irrigation water use = 35%
with 11% more yield (SRI 5.9 tons ha-1 vs. 5.1 tons ha-1
- usually SRI yield increase is much greater than this)
Total WUE
0.6 vs. 0.39 grams/liter (52% more)
Irrigation WUE 1.23 vs. 0.69 grams/liter (78%more)
P. Jagannath, H. Pullabhotla and N. Uphoff, “Evaluation of water use,
water saving and water use efficiency in irrigated rice production with
SRI vs. traditional management,” Taiwan Water Conservancy (2013)

13. Some demonstrations of how
more productive phenotypes
are being obtained from
available crop genotypes –
without reliance on new varieties,
or on chemical fertilizer, and
with less water requirement,
because of better root systems
and enhanced life in the soil

14. NEPAL:
Farmer with
a rice plant
grown from a
single seed
with SRI
methods
in Morang
district

15. CUBA: Farmer with two plants of the same
variety (VN 2084) and same age (52 DAS)

16. Indonesia: Stump of a
rice plant (modern
variety) grown from
a single seed with
SRI management
methods -having 223 tillers &
massive root growth
Panda’an, E. Java, 2009

17. IRAQ: Comparison trials at Al-Mishkhab Rice Research Station, Najaf

18. 300
Organ dry weight(g/hill)
SRI
250
200
150
47.9%
CK
Yellow leaf
and sheath
34.7%
Panicle
Leaf
100
Sheath
50
0
Stem
Stage IH H FH MR W R YRIH H FH MR WR YR
Non-Flooding Rice Farming Technology in Irrigated Paddy Field
Dr. Tao Longxing, China National Rice Research Institute, 2004

19. Results of trials conducted by the China National
Rice Research Institute over two years, 2004/2005,
using 2 super-hybrid varieties with an intention
to break the ‘yield plateau’ now limiting hybrids
Standard Rice Mgmt
• 30-day seedlings
• 20x20 cm spacing
• Continuous flooding
• Fertilization:
– 100% chemical
New Rice Mgmt (~ 75% ‘SRI’)
• 20-day seedlings
• 30x30 cm spacing
• Alt. wetting/drying (AWD)
• Fertilization:
– 50/50 chemical/organic
X.Q. Lin, D.F. Zhu, H.Z. Chen, S.H. Cheng and N. Uphoff (2009). “Effect of
plant density and nitrogen fertilizer rates on grain yield and nitrogen
uptake of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.)” Journal of Agricultural
Biotechnology and Sustainable Development, 1(2): 44-53

20. Average yields of (kg/ha) hybrid varieties
with ‘new rice management’ vs. standard rice
management at different plant densities per ha
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
NRM
SRM
150,000
180,000
210,000
Plant population per hectare
SRI practices yield more productive phenotypes -- Chinese
farmers are WASTING seeds and water and N fertilizer

21. SRI methods have set a new world yield record
Paddy production: Bihar
panchayat breaks China’s record
New Delhi, Mar 20:
A gram panchayat in Nalanda district of Bihar has
surpassed the Chinese record of paddy production,
the Union Agriculture Minister Mr Sharad Pawar
informed Parliament today. “As per the reports
received from the state government, the yield of wet
paddy has been recorded at 22.4 tonnes per hectare
and that of dry paddy at 20.16 tonnes a hectare ...,”
Mr Pawar said in a written reply to Lok Sabha.
The record yield was achieved under demonstration
on System of Rice Intensification (SRI) which was
organised at farmer’s field during kharif 2011, he
added. “It has surpassed the yield of 19 tonnes per
hectare which was recorded earlier in China.”

22. 2013: SRI’s phenotypic benefits have been seen now in
>50 countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
Before 1999: Madagascar
1999-2000: China, Indonesia
2001-02: Bangladesh, Cuba, Laos,
Cambodia, Gambia, India, Nepal,
Myanmar, Philippines, Sierra Leone,
Sri Lanka, Thailand
2003: Benin, Guinea, Mozambique, Peru
2004-05: Senegal, Pakistan, Vietnam
2006: Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Iran, Iraq,
Zambia
2007: Afghanistan, Brazil, Mali
2008: Rwanda, Costa Rica, Egypt,
Ecuador, Ghana, Japan
2009: Malaysia, Timor Leste
2010: Kenya, DPRK, Panama, Haiti
2011: Colombia, Korea, Taiwan,
Tanzania
2012: Burundi, Dominican Republic,
Niger, Nigeria, Togo
2013: Malawi, Cameroon

23. These changes in crop management
can be effective in very different and
quite contrasting agroecosystems:
* AFGHANISTAN: Baghlan province
1600 masl, temperate climate,
with a short growing season
* MALI: Timbuktu province
on the edge of the Sahara Desert,
with hot, dry subtropical climate

24. AFGHANISTAN: SRI field in Baghlan Province, supported by
Aga Khan Foundation Natural Resource Management program

25. AKF technician making a field visit in Baghlan province

26. SRI field at 30 days

27. SRI plant @ 72 days
after transplanting
with 133 tillers
11.56 t/ha

28. 2008: 6 farmers got
SRI yields of 10.1 t/ha vs.
5.4 t/ha regular methods
2009: 42 farmers got SRI
yields of 9.3 t/ha vs. 5.6 t/ha
with regular methods
- 2nd year SRI farmers got
13.3 t/ha vs. 5.6 t/ha
- 1st year SRI farmers got
8.7 t/ha vs. 5.5 t/ha
2011: 106 farmers got SRI
yields of 10.1 t/ha vs. 5.04
t/ha with regular methods
All were using less water

29. MALI -- SRI nursery in Timbuktu region –
8-day seedlings are ready for transplanting

30. SRI transplanting on
edge of Sahara Desert

31. Mali farmer working
with the NGO Africare
in Timbuktu region
with support from BUF,
showing difference
between rice plants:
regular (left) and SRI
2007/08: 1 farmer SRI yield of 8.98 t/ha
2008/09: 60 farmers 9.01 vs. 5.49 t/ha
2009/10: 130 farmers –
7.71 vs. 4.48 t/ha
using 32% less water
Gao region ave.: 7.84 t/ha
Mopti region ave.: 7.85 t/ha

32. Environmental Benefits with SRI:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Reduced water requirements – higher crop water-use
efficiency -- puts less pressure on ecosystems in
competition with agriculture for water supplies
Higher land productivity – reducing pressures for the
expansion of arable area to feed growing populations
Less use of inorganic fertilizer – reactive N is “the third
major threat to our planet after biodiversity loss and
climate change” (John Lawton, former chief executive,
UK National Environmental Research Council)
Less reliance on agrochemicals for crop protection which enhances the quality of both soil and water
Buffering against the effects of climate change –
drought, storms (resist lodging), cold temperatures
Some reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) – CH4 can
be reduced without producing offsetting N2O

33. Other Benefits from Changes in Practices
1. Water saving – major concern in many places, also
now have ‘rainfed’ version with similar results
2. Greater resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses –
less damage from pests and diseases, drought,
typhoons, flooding, cold spells [discuss tomorrow]
3. Shorter crop cycle – same varieties are harvested
by 1-3 weeks sooner, save water, less crop risk
4. High milling output – by about 15%, due to fewer
unfilled grains (less chaff) and fewer broken grains
5. Reductions in labor requirements – widely reported
incentive for changing practices in India and China;
also, mechanization is being introduced many places
Drought-resistance:costs of production – weeks after irrigation
6. Reductions in Rice fields in Sri Lanka 3 greater farmer
stopped because of drought -- conventionally-grown field is on left,
income and profitability, also health benefits
and SRI field is on right-- same variety, same soil, same climate

34. ,
Results from Bihar State, 2007-2011
Data from Bihar Rural Livelihood Promotion Society, Govt. of Bihar
SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION -- state ave. 2.3 t/ha
Climatic conditions
2007
Normal
rainfall
No. of smallholders
Area under SRI (ha)
SRI yield (t/ha)
Conv. yield (t/ha)
2008
2009
Water
Drought, but
submergence rainfall in
occurred 2x
Sept.
2010
Complete
drought
128
30
10.0
5,146
544
7.75
8,367
786
6.5
19,911
1,412
3.22*
2.7
2.36
2.02
1.66*
SYSTEM OF WHEAT INTENSIFICATION -- state ave. 2.4 t/ha
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
No. of smallholders
415
25,235
48,521
Area under SWI (ha)
16
1,200
2,536
SWI average yield (t/ha)
3.6
4.5
NA
Conv. average yield (t/ha)
1.6
1.6
NA
* Results from measurements of yield on 74 farmers’ SRI and conventional fields

35. CHINA: SRI extension and impact in Sichuan, 2004-10
Year
2004 2005 2006
2007
2008
2010
941,068
7,267
57,400
SRI yield (kg/ha)
9,105
9,435
8,805
9,075
9,300
9,495
9,555
9,252
Non-SRI yield (kg/ha)
7,740
7,650
7,005
7,395
7,575
7,710
7,740
7,545
SRI increment (t/ha)*
1,365 1,785 1,800# 1,680
1,725
1,785 1,815#
1,708
SRI % increase in yield*
17.6%
22.8%
23.2%
Increased grain (tons）
1,547
Grain price (RMB
Yuan/kg)
Added net income due
to SRI (million RMB)*
23.3%
25.7%
22.7%
12,971 103,320 197,008 352,705
252,467 301,067
Total
1,133
SRI area (ha)
117,267 204,467
2009
23.5%
22.7%
450,653 546,436
1,664,640
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.50
1.80
1.84
1.95
1.28
11.64
106.51
205.10
450.85
571.69
704.27
1.63
2,051
($300 m)
* Comparison is with Sichuan provincial average for paddy yield and SRI profitability
# In drought years, SRI yields were relatively higher than with conventional methods
Source: Data are from the Sichuan Provincial Department of Agriculture.

36. Storm resistance:
Adjacent fields
after being hit by
a tropical storm
in Dông Trù village,
Hanoi province,
Vietnam
On left are SRI field
and rice plant; on
right, conventional
field and plant
Same variety was
used in both fields
-- on right, we see
serious lodging;
on left, no lodging

37. Incidence of diseases and pests in Vietnam:
National IPM Program evaluation -- averages of
data from on-farm trials in 8 provinces, 2005-06:
Spring season
Summer season
SRI
plots
Farmer
plots
Difference
SRI
plots
Farmer
Plots
Difference
6.7%
18.1%
63.0%
5.2%
19.8%
73.7%
--
--
--
8.6%
36.3%
76.5%
Small leaf
folder *
63.4
107.7
41.1%
61.8
122.3
49.5%
Brown plant
hopper *
542
1,440
62.4%
545
3,214
83.0%
Sheath
blight
Leaf blight
AVERAGE
* Insects/m2
55.5%
70.7%

38. Modern
improved
variety
(Ciherang)
– no yield
Traditional
aromatic
variety
(Sintanur)
- 8 t/ha
Resistance to both biotic and abiotic stresses: fields were hit
by both brown planthopper (BPH) and by storm damage in
Indonesia – the rice field on left was grown with standard
practices, while the field on the right is organic SRI

39. Comparison of methane gas emission
1000
840.1
kg CH4 / ha
800
72 %
600
400
237.6
200
0
CT
SRI
Emission (kg/ha)
CO2 ton/ha
CH4
N2 O
equivalent
CT
840.1
0
17.6
SRI
237.6
0.074
5.0
Treatment

40. SRI practices are now being used beyond rice, for
broader System of Crop Intensification (SCI)
Farmer-led innovations with civil society help in:
• Wheat (SWI) -- India, Nepal, Ethiopia, Mali
• Sugarcane (SSI) -- India, Cuba
• Finger millet (SFMI) -- India, Ethiopia
• Mustard (rapeseed/canola) -- India
• Teff -- Ethiopia
• Sorghum – Ethiopia
Also: maize, soya bean, black gram, green gram, red
gram, tomatoes, chilies, eggplant, sesame, turmeric,
etc. -- India, Ethiopia

41. Report on System of Crop Intensification
(SCI) results in the Indian state of Bihar
Crops
Rice
Wheat
Oil seeds
Pulses
Vegetables
Yield
increase
86%
72%
50%
56%
20%
Profitability
per ha
250%
86%
93%
67%
37%
Enhancing Agricultural Livelihoods through
Community Institutions in Bihar, India (2013)
D. Behera et al., World Bank India Office,
New Delhi, and JEEVIKA, Patna, India

42. System of Wheat Intensification on-farm trials
in Tigray Province, Ethiopia, 2009-10,
supported by a grant from Oxfam America to
Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD)
-- 39 grains vs. 56 grains per panicle

43. SWI results in Mali (1st year)
Africare program, 2009
•
•
•
•
•
Numbers of tillers
18.4
3.7
Seed reduction: 94% (10 vs 170 kg/ha)
Yield increase: 10% (2.2 vs 2.0 t/ha)
Labor reduction: 40%
Irrigation water reduction: 30%
Problems: mortality, spacing was too
wide (25cm x 25cm  20 x 20 cm)
Panicle length: SWI: 10.2 cm Traditional: 4.2 cm

44. Panicles of SWI
wheat in Bihar, India
In 2012, area with
SWI management
>180,000 ha, aided
by JEEVIKA program
with WB/IDA support

45. ICRISAT-WWF
Sugarcane Initiative:
• 20-100% more
cane yield, with
• 30% reduction in
water, and
• 25% reduction in
chemical inputs
“The inspiration for putting
this package together is
from the successful
approach of SRI – System
of Rice Intensification.”

46. System of Teff
Intensification
(STI) in Ethiopia
now supported by
the government’s
Agricultural
Transformation
Agency (ATA)
and BMGF
Transplanted teff
on left; conventional
broadcast teff on right
7,000 farmers in 2012,
plus 160,000 farmers
practicing STI ‘lite’
(drilled > transplanted)

47. These results do not argue against
making further genetic improvements
or against any use of external inputs
They do suggest, however, that progress can
be made right now at low cost with savings
of water and with buffering against climate
change -- by changing crop management
practices, especially by attending to the
purposeful nurturing of roots and soil biota
WHAT IS GOING ON?

48. Two practical conclusions:
1. Instead of focusing so much on
‘feeding the plant’ (with fertilizer),
we should be ‘feeding the soil’
with organic matter, so that
the soil system will feed the plant
2. Rather than focus so much on
growing plants (above ground),
we should do whatever is needed
to grow roots! -- because it is the
root systems that grow the plant

49. With SRI/SCI we see the importance of
the abundance, diversity and activity of
beneficial SOIL ORGANISMS promoted
by soil organic matter and by exudates
from large, functioning ROOT SYSTEMS
which support plant growth and health
We are just starting to understand
better the contributions of symbiotic
endophytes to mobilizing the services
for crops of the plant-soil microbiome

50. Soil-aerating hand weeder in Sri Lanka costing <$20

51. Effects of ‘Active Soil Aeration’
412 farmers in Morang district of Nepal
when using SRI in monsoon season, 2005
SRI yield = 6.3 t/ha vs. control yield = 3.1 t/ha
Data show how WEEDINGS can raise yield
No. of
weedings
1
2
3
No. of
farmers
32
366
14
Average
yield
5.16
5.87
7.87
Range
of yields
(3.6 - 7.6)
(3.5 - 11.0)
(5.85 - 10.4)

52. Impact of weedings on yield with SRI methods
in Ambatovaky, Madagascar, 1997-98
No. of mech.
weedings
Farmers
(N)
Area
(ha)
Harvest
(kg)
Yield
(t/ha)
0
2
8
27
24
15
0.11
0.62
3.54
5.21
5.92
657
3,741
26,102
47,516
69,693
5.973
7.723
7.373
9.120
11.772
1
2
3
4

53. ENDOPHYTIC AZOSPIRILLUM, TILLERING,
AND RICE YIELDS WITH CULTIVATION
PRACTICES AND NUTRIENT AMENDMENTS
Replicated trials at Anjomakely, Madagascar, 2001 (Andriankaja, 2002)
CLAY SOIL
Traditional cultivation,
no amendments
SRI cultivation, with
no amendments
SRI cultivation, with
NPK amendments
SRI cultivation,
with compost
Azospirillum
in roots
(103 CFU/mg)
Tillers/
plant
Yield
(t/ha)
65
17
1.8
1,100
45
6.1
450
68
9.0
1,400
78
10.5
75
32
2.1
2,000
47
6.6
LOAM SOIL
SRI cultivation with
no amendments
SRI cultivation,
with compost

54. Microbial populations in rice rhizosphere
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University research
Microorganisms
Total bacteria
Conventional
management
88 x 106
SRI
management
105 x 106
(20% more)
Azospirillum
8 x 105
31 x 105
(~4x more)
Azotobacter
39 x 103
66 x 103
(~2x more)
Phosphobacteria
33 x 103
59 x 103
(~2x more)
T. M. Thiyagarajan, WRRC presentation, Tsukuba, Japan, 2004

55. Microbial populations in rhizosphere soil of rice crop under different management
at active tillering, panicle initiation, and flowering (conv. = red; SRI = yellow).
Units are √ transformed values of population/gram of dry soil (data from IPB)
Total diazotrophs
Total bacteria
40
30
20
10
0
Phosphobacteria
Azotobacter

56. Microbial activity in rhizosphere soil of rice crop under different management
(conv. = red; SRI = yellow) at active tillering, panicle initiation, and flowering stages
Units are √ transformed values of population/gram of dry soil per 24 h
Dehydrogenase activity (μg TPF)
Acid phosphate activity (μg p-Nitrophenol)
Urease activity (μg NH4-N))
Nitrogenase activity (nano mol C2H4)

57. Total microbes and numbers of beneficial microbes
(CFU mg-1) under conventional and SRI cultivation methods,
Tanjung Sari, Indonesia, Feb.-Aug. 2009 (Iswandi et al., 2009)
Cultivation
method and
fertilization
Total
microbes
(x105)
Azotobacter
(x103)
Azospirillum
(x103)
P-solubilizing
bacteria
(x104)
Conventional
mgmt (NPK)
2.3a
1.9a
0.9a
3.3a
2.7a
2.2a
1.7ab
4.0a
3.8b
3.7b
2.8bc
5.9b
4.8c
4.4b
3.3c
6.4b
Inorganic SRI
(with NPK)
Organic SRI
(compost)
Inorganic SRI
+ biofertilizer

58. These results suggest the importance of
studying and understanding the
contributions that are made by
symbiotic endophytes
(aka endophytic symbionts) – major
parts of the plant-soil microbiome

59. “Ascending Migration of Endophytic Rhizobia, from
Roots and Leaves, inside Rice Plants and Assessment of
Benefits to Rice Growth Physiology”
Feng Chi et al., Applied and Envir. Microbiology 71: 7271-7278 (2005)
Rhizobium
strain
Ac-ORS
571
Sm-1021
Sm-1002
R1-2370
Mh-93
Control
Total plant Shoot dry Net photosynroot vol/pot wt/pot
thesis rate
(cm3)
(g)
(µmol of CO2
± SE
± SE
m-2 s-1) ± SE
210
± 36A
180
± 26A
168
± 8AAB
175
± 23A
193
± 16A
130
± 10B
63
± 2A
67
± 5A
52
± 4BC
61
± 8AB
67
± 4A
47
± 6C
16.42
± 1.39A
14.99
± 1.64B
13.70
± 0.73B
13.85
± 0.38B
13.86
± 0.76B
10.23
± 1.03C
Water
utilization
efficiency
± SE
Grain
yield/pot
(g)
± SE
3.63
± 0.17BC
4.02
± 0.19AB
4.15
± 0.32A
3.36
± 0.41C
3.18
± 0.25CD
2.77
± 0.69D
86
± 5A
86
± 4A
61
± 4B
64
± 9B
77
± 5A
51
± 4C

60. “Proteomic analysis of rice seedlings infected by
Sinorhizobium meliloti 1021”
Feng Chi et al., Proteomics 10: 1861-1874 (2010)

61. Ratio of root and shoot growth in symbiotic and
nonsymbiotic rice plants -- seeds were inoculated
with the fungus Fusarium culmorum vs. controls
R. J. Rodriguez et al., ‘Symbiotic regulation of plant growth,
development and reproduction” Communicative
and Integrative Biology, 2:3 (2009).
Data are based on the average linear root and shoot growth of three
symbiotic (dashed line) and three nonsymbiotic (solid line) plants.
Arrows indicate the times when root hair development started.

62. Growth of nonsymbiotic (on left) and symbiotic (on right) rice seedlings.
On the growth of endophyte (F. culmorum) and plant inoculation procedures,
see Rodriguez et al., Communicative and Integrative Biology, 2:3 (2009).

63. More productive phenotypes also can give
higher water-use efficiency as measured by
the ratio of photosynthesis to transpiration
For each 1 millimol of water lost by transpiration:
3.6 millimols of CO2 are fixed in SRI plants,
1.6 millimols of CO2 are fixed in RMP plants
This becomes more important with climate change
“An assessment of physiological effects of the System of Rice
Intensification (SRI) compared with recommended rice cultivation
practices in India,” A.K. Thakur, N. Uphoff and E. Antony
Experimental Agriculture, 46(1), 77-98 (2010)

64. Economics, environmental vulnerabilities,
and climate change effects will require a
different kind of agriculture in 21st century.
Suggest we RE-BIOLOGIZE AGRICULTURE
We need an understanding of agriculture that is
more informed by microbiology, crop physiology,
soil ecology, and epigenetics – which are becoming
more prominent in our contemporary science
Closing thought: Darwin’s ‘tree of life’ was
good taxonomy, but not very good biology
-- We never left the microbes behind…

65. THANK YOU
Web page: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/
Email: ntu1@cornell.edu [NTU-one]