I will start by saying that field researches are much more real, they came closer by the plant management nutrition than the ones made under lab conditions. On the field are operating the same biotically and abiotically factors which are influencing crops nutrition in the farms. Lab researches are rather nutrition physiology studies because it is impossible for us to replicate all the field factors. However, they help a lot the studies made on the field, so we can say that these two are complementary.
The field experiments must fulfill the basic principles of design of experiments and the suitable designs should be planned before the conduct of experiments. Then the results will certainly be useful an better than lab experiments.
Due importance should be given to experiments under controlled condition as they provide basic information about the nature, properties oil solution and plant system, potentiality as well of a particular nutrient up to a great extent, However real testing of any such outcome should only be tested under field conditions to know the realized the extent and pattern of realization of its potential explored while testing under controlled lab conditions.
If the objective is to find the response towards a particular treatment, and discounting the interactions of different treatments between them, I think the controlled conditions are the best suited. But when we are trying to test other factors and their interactions amongst them field experiments would be appropriate..
Infact , nutrient management studies are more realistic when carried out in the field , since nutrients are subjected to real three dimensional factors , where plants also get an opportunity to be intuned while working in tandem with each other...