All: With respect to the general subject and not with respect to this particular line of discussion (except tangential, as there is not enough information presented to understand the scope of the research, just what is expected to be determined thereby), I have long wondered if such trials are too trying--if there are not too many variables possibly affecting outcomes to prove much (unless a large number of repetitions are performed). For example, interacting problems like genetic variation and "microsite" conditions, or even considering such factors in isolation (not that they should be).
Of course, this leads to the central problem of ecosystem research, the endless array of variables. If there is a black magic solution to this, I would like to see it discussed here. Personally, I don't think of field trials as being of more than very limited usefulness in gaining, directly, very deep understanding of ecosystems, and have found that there is a considerable risk that more can be made of "results" (especially of isolated, unreplicated ones) than can be demonstrated, and thus mislead researchers and others (e.g., paper researchers--like me, for example) who place confidence in them. But that's another tangent . . . I have found that they do teach great lessons about how difficult ecosystem research is--unless one jumps to to the conclusion that ones hypothesis has been demonstrated, nay, proved, and that a Nobel Prize is in the bag. But having Nature slap me up 'side the head so many times has been of far greater value than all the enshrined certainty that has come my way. I suspect that much of the field trial work being done today has its roots in agricultural research (a poor model indeed), and that field research in ecology needs more than a bit of re-thinking--if that suspicion remains more true than untrue. I look forward to having my suspicions laid to rest. WT
