assumption in the estimation of our production functions is that the error in crop cutting estimates is independent of the plot size. Given the random placement of the crop cut sub-plots whose size did not vary by plot size, this assumption should be tenable, as also maintained by Desiere and Jolliffe (2017).

Appendix III provides the MAPS sub-plot and full plot crop cutting protocol in detail. In Round I, a 4x4 meter subplot (divided into four 2x2m quadrants) and a separate 2x2 meter subplot were laid on the chosen maize plot during the post-planting visit following a strict protocol to ensure the location of the subplots was random, as described in Appendix III. The subplots were cordoned off until harvest, and were supervised by the local crop cut monitors between the post-planting and the crop cutting visits. Each plot manager was asked not to harvest any crop from the sub-plots until the crop cutting visits, and not to manage the sub-plot any differently than the rest of the plot. These messages, first communicated by the enumerator, were intended to be enforced by the local crop cut monitors.

During the crop cutting visit, the shelled maize harvests tied to each of the five 2x2m quadrants were weighed and barcoded separately in the field, and were reweighed at a central location in Kampala under strict supervision following additional drying (once the moisture content was in the range of 12 to 14 percent). At the time of the final weighing, the moisture content of each sample was captured as to standardize all crop cut sample weights used for our analyses at 12 percent moisture. The MAPS I sub-plot crop cutting based plot-level maize production estimates are computed by multiplying the combined crop cut sub-plot production across the 20m<sup>2</sup> area covered by the combination of the 4x4m and the 2x2m subplots by the ratio of the entire GPSbased plot area in m<sup>2</sup> to 20m<sup>2</sup> .<sup>13</sup> In MAPS II, only one 8x8 meter sub-plot (divided into four 4x4m quadrants) was laid on each plot.<sup>14</sup> The harvests tied to each of the four 4x4m quadrants were weighed and barcoded separately in the field, and the rest of the protocols for crop cut sub-plot supervision and harvest management were identical to those followed in MAPS II.<sup>15</sup> The MAPS II sub-plot crop cutting based plot-level

> 13 While not reported here, the MAPS I average sub-plot crop cutting plot-level maize yield was not sensitive whether one used the 20m<sup>2</sup> crop cut sub-plot area across both sub-plots; the 16m<sup>2</sup> crop cut sub-plot area covered by the 4x4m sub-plot; or the 4m<sup>2</sup> crop cut sub-plot area covered by the 2x2m subplot. These results are available upon request. 14 The change to the number and size of the sub-plots in MAPS II was underlined by two factors. First, in MAPS I, within the remote sensing tasking area, the difference between the average maize based on the 4x4m subplot and the comparable statistic based on the 2x2m subplot was not statistically significant. Second, the standard deviation among the yields obtained from 5 2x2 crop cut sub-plots was used to calculated the standard error of the mean yield for the field, assuming that the variability within the sample was representative of the variability throughout the field. A large fraction of the fields had standard errors above 10, even 20, percent of the mean, especially for fields with relatively low estimates of mean yield. This in turn raised a question around the extent to which, say, the yield based on a 4x4m sub-plot could be deemed representative of the yield based on the entire plot area. Taking these observations and other logistical considerations into account, the crop cut sub-plot area was increased to 8x8m in MAPS II, with each of the 4x4m quadrant harvests tracked separately to ensure maximum comparability to MAPS I.

15 In cases where the respondent harvested, despite the instructions during the post-planting visit, a portion of the cropcutting sub-plot prior to the crop cutting visit, the crop-cutting production figure was inflated by the percentage of the 11