The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Probing the enigma of the decision support system for farmers: Learning from experience and from theory
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A substantial gap persists between the use of cotton simulation models for research and for on-farm decision making.
“Despite these positive developments, a substantial gap persists between the use of cotton simulation models for research and for on-farm decision making (McCown, 2002b; McCown et al., 2002).”
From Development and Application of Process-based Simulation Models for Cotton Production: A Review of Past, Present, and Future Directions (2014) · cites this paper as McCown et al., 2002
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Ascough, 1999, Computer use in agriculture: an analysis of Great Plains producers, Decision Support Systems, 23, 189
- Banks, 1991, The Simulator: new member of the simulation family, Interfaces, 21, 76, 10.1287/inte.21.2.76 · DOI
- Boone, K., Porter, D.O., 1997. GOSSYM/COMAX—the quixotic quest. In: Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, vol. 1. National Cotton Council of America, pp. 380–383.
- Carberry, P.S., Hochman, Z., McCown, R.L., Dalgliesh, N.P., Foale, M.A., Poulton, P.L., Hargreaves, J.N.G., Hargreaves, D.M.G., Cawthray, S., Hillcoat, N., Robertson, M.J., 2002. The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication, and performance evaluation. Agricultural Systems 74, 141–177. · DOI
- Donnelly, J.R., Freer, M., Moore, A.D., Simpson, R.J., Salmon, E., Dove, H., Bolger, T.P., 2002. Evolution of the GRAZPLAN decision support tools and adoption by the grazing industry in temperate Australia. Agricultural Systems 74, 115–140. · DOI
- Goodell, 1993, Delivering expert systems to agriculture: experiences with CALEX/cotton, AI Applications, 7, 14
- Hayman, P.T., Easdown, W.J., 2002. An ecology of a DSS: reflections on managing wheat crops in the N.E. Australian grains region with WHEATMAN. Agricultural Systems 74, 57–77. · DOI
- Hearn, A.B., Bange, M.P., 2002. SIRATAC and CottonLOGIC: persevering with DSSs in the Australian Cotton Industry. Agricultural Systems 74, 27–56. · DOI · Paper page
- Keating, B.A., Carberry, P.S., Hammer, G.L., Probert, M.E., Robertson, M.J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N.I., Hargreaves, J.N.G., Meinke, H., Hochman, Z., McLean, G., Verburg, K., Snow, V., Dimes, J.P., Silburn, M., Wang, E., Brown, S., Bristow, K.L., Asseng, S., Chapman, S., McCown, R.L., Freebairn, D.M., Smith, C.J. The Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM): its history and current capability. European Journal of Agronomy (in press).
- McCown, R.L., 2002a. Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of ‘models for management’. Agricultural Systems 74, 11–26. · DOI
- McCown, R.L., 2002b. Changing systems for supporting farmers decisions: paradigms, problems, and prospects. Agricultural Systems 74, 179–220. · DOI
- Parker, 1999, Decision support systems: lessons from past failures, Farm Management, 10, 273
- Plant, 1997, Implementation of cotton crop management expert systems: lessons from 10 years of experience, AI Applications, 11, 33
- Stuth, J.W., Hamilton, W.T., Conner, R., 2002. Insights in Development and deployment of the GLA and NUTBAL decision support systems for grazinglands. Agricultural Systems 74, 99–113. · DOI
- Welch, S.M., Jones, J.W., Brennan, M.W., Reeder G., Jacobson, B.M., 2002. PCYield: model-based decision support for soybean production. Agricultural Systems 74, 79–98. · DOI
- Woodruff, 1992, 'WHEATMAN': a decision support system for wheat management in subtropical Australia, Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 43, 1483, 10.1071/AR9921483 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Thorp, K. R., Ale, S., Bange, M. P., Barnes, E. M., Hoogenboom, G., Lascano, R. J., McCarthy, A. C., Nair, S., Paz, J. O., Rajan, N., et al. (2014) · Journal of Cotton Science · doi:10.56454/oovc6073 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- McCown, R. L., Hochman, Z., & Carberry, P. S.
- Affiliations
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McCown, R.L
- ORCID
- Hochman, Z
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2057587258
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Agricultural Systems (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Keywords
- decision support system, design science, agricultural science, farmer support, sustainability transitions, interdisciplinary dialogue, agricultural innovation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
