Untangling genotype x management interactions in multi-environment on-farm experimentation

•Identifying optimum crop design to match the environment remains a useful concept to maximise crop yields and farmers’ profits.•There is opportunity for field agronomic multi-environment experimentation to embrace system research approaches.•The value of applying a GxExM framework to increase yields and manage risks relates to our capacity to predict E at sowing and to the genetic diversity of the germplasm. Identifying optimum combinations of genotype (G) and agronomic management (M) i.e. crop design, to match the environment (E) i.e. site and expected seasonal conditions, is a useful concept to maximise crop yields and farmers’ profits. However, operationalising the concept requires practitioners to understand the likelihood of different E outcomes and GxM combinations that would maximise yields while managing risks. Here we propose and demonstrate an analysis framework to inform crop designs (GxM) at the time of sowing of a dryland maize crop, that combines data sets from multi-environment field experimentation and crop simulation modelling, and that accounts for risk preference. A network of replicated, G by M on-farm and on-research station trials (n = 10), conducted across New South Wales and Queensland, Australia, over three seasons (2014–2016) was collected. The trials consisted of combinations of commercial maize hybrids, sown at a range of plant densities and row configurations producing site average yields (Environment-yield) that varied between 1576 and 7914 kg ha−1. Experimental data were used to test the capacity of APSIM-Maize 7.10 to simulate the experimental results, and to in-silico create a large synthetic data set of multi-E (sites x seasons) factorial combination of crop designs. Data mining techniques were applied on the synthetic data set, to derive a probabilistic model to predict the likely Environment-yield and associated risk from variables known at sowing, and to derive simple “rules of thumb” for farmers that discriminate high and low yielding crop designs across the lower, middle and upper tercile of the predicted Environment-yields. Four risk profiles are described, a “Dynamic” (i.e. each year the farmer would adopt a crop design based on the predicted Environment-yield tercile and corresponding “rules of thumb”), “High rewards seeker” (i.e. each year the farmer would adopt the crop design that optimises yield for the higher tercile of Environment-yields), “Middle’er” (i.e. each year the farmer would adopt the crop design th