Eliciting experts’ tacit models for the interpretation of soil information, an example from the evaluation of potential benefits from conservation agriculture

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

We examined a procedure to elicit the tacit models underlying expert opinions on environmental factors that affect the absolute yield benefits expected from the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) practices in southern Africa. The procedure is based on expert evaluation of the expected improvement in crop yield on adoption of CA in a particular scenario or ‘state’, a state being a specified set of soil conditions captured by a standard soil profile description from a specified agroecological zone (AEZ) of Zambia. Mixed groups of scientists including soil scientists, agronomists, agricultural economists and other environmental scientists, facilitated by experienced senior researchers, were presented with multiple subsets each of three states, and asked to rank the states in each subset with respect to expected yield improvement under CA. The groups of scientists could be divided into two sets. Each set comprised two groups, and the agreement on ranking between groups within each set was larger than would be expected if the ranking were done at random. For both sets of groups the ranking could be modelled with respect to properties of the soil, and the contrast between AEZ. The models revealed two contrasting groups of conceptual assumptions. One group broadly expected larger absolute yield improvements from conservation agriculture in settings where water is most likely to be limiting and the carbon status of the soil is poor. By contrast, the other group expected larger improvements where water was less likely to be limiting. These contrasting views are relevant to current discussions as to whether conservation agriculture, which is promoted as a ‘climate smart’ strategy for cropping, is sufficiently attractive for smallholder producers in conditions where crop production is already challenging, and whether the potential benefits in areas where water availability is not of itself a common limitation should be considered. The elicited models could be translated directly into competing hypotheses to be tested, perhaps in on-farm trials of conservation agriculture practices over contrasting soils in the different AEZ. The method, based on modelling the ranking process, could be of more general interest for the elicitation of expert opinion about complex soil, crop and environmental systems.