How to Write Results and Discussion in an Agriculture Paper

Results state what happened; Discussion explains what it means. Results are written in the past tense with no references and no interpretation. Discussion compares your findings with earlier work, offers a mechanism, admits the limits and says what follows. Mixing the two is the commonest structural fault reviewers report.

Authors submitting to an agriculture journal often find these two sections hardest, and the difficulty is usually not writing but deciding what belongs where.

The dividing line

The sentence flagged most often looks like this: “Yield increased with the three-way split, which agrees with Singh et al. [12] and can be attributed to better synchrony between supply and demand.” That is a Results sentence carrying a Discussion sentence inside it. Split it.

Writing Results

1. Report, do not argue. Give the values, the direction and the significance. Explanation comes later.
2. Point at your tables and figures, do not transcribe them. “Grain yield rose with each additional split (Table 2)” is better than reading the column out in prose.
3. Give the numbers that carry the argument. Two or three, with units and significance. Not all twelve.

“Grain yield averaged 5.24 t ha^-1 under the three-way split, against 4.78 under the two-way split and 4.11 under the single basal dose, a gain of 9.6% over the two-way split (p < 0.05; Table 2).”

That sentence does the whole job: direction, magnitude, comparison, significance, and a pointer to the table. Nothing is interpreted and nothing is missing.

Report what did not work, too

In an agriculture journal paper, non-significant differences, failed treatments and a season that behaved oddly are all results. Leaving them out makes the paper tidier and less true, and reviewers who notice a gap in a series will ask.

Be careful with language. A difference that failed a significance test is not “a trend towards improvement”; it is a difference the data cannot support. That phrasing appears in a lot of submissions and reviewers are alert to it.

Writing Discussion: the five moves

1. Restate the key finding in one sentence, without repeating the numbers.
2. Explain the mechanism. Why did it happen? This is the part readers remember and the part that separates a paper from a data dump.
3. Compare with published work. Where do you agree, where do you differ, and why might that be?
4. State the limitations. Seasons, sites, soil types, sample size, what you could not measure.
5. Say what follows. What should someone do differently, and what should be tested next?

Move 2 is where most Discussion sections are thin. “The improvement may be due to better nutrient uptake” is a placeholder. If you have evidence — tissue analysis, a soil test, a growth-stage measurement — use it. If you do not, say the mechanism is not established by these data.

Combining the two sections

This agriculture journal allows Results, Discussion and Conclusion to be combined where that reads better, and for some papers it genuinely does — particularly short studies where each result needs its interpretation immediately.

If you combine them, keep the distinction visible inside the paragraph: state the finding with its numbers, then interpret. What fails is a combined section where nobody can tell which sentences are observation and which are inference.

Using tables and figures properly

That last row is a rule here, not a preference. Choose the form that carries the point and reference it from the text.

Three Results sections that get comments

The one that reads out the table

“At 40 kg N the yield was 3.81 t ha^-1, at 80 kg it was 4.36, at 120 kg it was 5.24, at 160 kg it was 5.19…” The table already says this. Give the direction, the peak and the significance, and point at the table.

The one with no numbers at all

“Yield improved considerably with the split application.” Considerably is not a quantity. Every claim in a Results section should carry a number a reader could check against the table.

The one that starts arguing

“The improvement confirms that split application should replace basal dressing in this zone.” That is a Discussion sentence, and a large claim, sitting where nobody can yet see the evidence for it.

A structure you can reuse

For each major finding, in Discussion:

1. One sentence: what you found (no numbers, they are in Results)
2. Two or three sentences: why it happened, with whatever evidence you have
3. One or two sentences: how it compares with published work
4. One sentence: what limits this

Repeat for the next finding, then close with the overall limitations and what should be tested next. That shape works for most agriculture journal papers and it stops the Discussion drifting into a general essay, which is the other common failure.

Season and site: the limits that matter most

Agricultural results are bounded by where and when they were obtained, more tightly than in most disciplines. A response measured over two rabi seasons on a sandy loam does not automatically transfer to a Vertisol, to a kharif crop, or to a year with different rainfall.

So the honest Discussion states the bounds and then stays inside them. A recommendation for “the region” from one site is the single easiest claim for a reviewer to reject, and narrowing it costs you nothing — the same data framed as a first result warranting multi-location testing is publishable.

Handling a result that contradicts the literature

This worries agriculture journal authors more than it should. A contradiction is interesting; hiding it is not. State it plainly, offer the most likely explanation, and say what would settle the question.

“This is lower than the 6.1 t ha^-1 reported by [14] for the same variety. The difference is most likely a consequence of soil texture: [14] worked on a clay loam with higher water-holding capacity, against the sandy loam used here. Testing across textures would establish whether this accounts for the whole gap.”

Three sentences: the difference, a mechanism, and a test. That is a stronger Discussion than any amount of agreement.

Limitations are not a weakness

Authors leave limitations out fearing they invite rejection. The opposite happens. A reviewer who spots an unstated limit assumes you did not notice it; one who reads it stated assumes you understand your own work.

Keep it factual and short: how many seasons, how many sites, what soil, what you could not measure, and what that means for how far the conclusion travels. Then narrow the conclusion to match — a single-season, single-site trial recommended for regional adoption is a common reason agriculture journal papers are rejected after review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Results and Discussion?

Results state what happened. Discussion explains what it means. Results are in the past tense with no references; Discussion compares your findings with earlier work and therefore cites it.

Can I combine Results and Discussion?

Yes. At this journal Results, Discussion and Conclusion may be combined where that reads better. If you combine them, keep the distinction visible — state the finding, then interpret it.

Should I repeat numbers from a table in the text?

No. Point to the trend and the two or three numbers carrying the argument. Repeating a whole table in prose wastes words and makes both harder to read.

What tense should Results be in?

Past tense throughout. You are reporting what happened in an experiment that is over.

How do I discuss a result that contradicts published work?

State it plainly, give the most likely explanation, and say what would settle it. A contradiction reported honestly is publishable; one quietly omitted is a problem waiting to be found.

What if a treatment difference was not significant?

Report it. Non-significant results are results. State the test, the value and the threshold, and be careful not to describe a non-significant difference as a trend.

Related Guides

What happens when originality is questioned:

• How to Write the Materials and Methods Section of an Agriculture Paper
• How to Prepare Figures and Tables for an Agriculture Journal
• How to Write an Abstract for an Agriculture Research Paper