Cited by 62Agricultural Innovations and PracticesGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural economics and policies

Testing for Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans and Conservation Tillage

Open access
Perry, Edward D., Moschini, GianCarlo, Hennessy, David A.·2016·American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Abstract

Many decisions in agriculture are made over combinations of inputs and/or practices that may form a technology system linked through complementarity. The presence of complementarity among producer decisions can have far‐reaching implications for market outcomes and for the effectiveness of policies intended to influence them. Identifying complementarity relations, however, is made difficult by the presence of unobserved heterogeneity. Drawing on recent methodological advances, in this paper we develop a test for complementarity between glyphosate tolerant soybeans and conservation tillage that overcomes certain limitations of previous studies. Specifically, we develop a structural discrete choice framework of joint soybean‐tillage adoption that explicitly models both complementarity and the correlation induced by unobserved heterogeneity. The model is estimated with a large unbalanced panel of farm‐level choices spanning the 1998–2011 period. We find that glyphosate tolerant soybeans and conservation tillage are complementary practices. In addition, our estimation shows that farm operation scale promotes the adoption of both conservation tillage and glyphosate tolerant seed, and that all of higher fuel prices, more droughty conditions, and soil erodibility increase use of conservation tillage. We apply our results to simulate annual adoption rates for both conservation tillage and no‐tillage in a scenario without glyphosate tolerant soybeans available as a choice. We find that the adoption of conservation tillage and no‐tillage have been about 10% and 20% higher, respectively, due to the advent of glyphosate tolerant soybeans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajae/aaw001

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perry, E. D., Moschini, G., & Hennessy, D. A.
Affiliations
Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Perry, Edward D.
Venue
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-17
Volume
98
Issue
3
Pages
765-784
ISSN
  • 0002-9092 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8276
OpenAlex
W2291202437
Cited by
61
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
FWCI
24.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Agricultural Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (11061138/2012-01764)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
Keywords
complementarity, glyphosate-resistant soybean, conservation tillage, no-tillage, technology adoption, unobserved heterogeneity, fuel prices, drought, soil erodibility, agricultural policy

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