The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty and learning in a technologically dynamic industry: Seed density in U.S. maize
Abstract
The large and sustained yield gains achieved since the introduction of maize hybrids in the 1930s (about 1.8 bushels per acre per year) have been accompanied by a remarkably parallel and steady increase in seeding density. This increase occurred in an environment characterized by rapid technological innovation, including genetic engineering, and commercial hybrid varieties with short life cycles. An important question, then, is whether and how breeders and farmers have learned about the optimal planting density. In this paper, we use unique and detailed U.S. farm‐level data, consisting of more than 400,000 planting choices from 1995–2016, to assess the nature of learning about seeding density. Importantly, we control for unobserved confounders through both hybrid and farm‐level fixed effects. We find that the variance in planting rates for a given hybrid has decreased over time, and that farmers tend to plant a given variety at higher rates over time. This is consistent with Bayesian learning in which risk‐neutral farmers possess priors consistently below the true optimal rate. We cast doubt on risk aversion as a credible explanation for this finding by analyzing the contrasting evolution of soybean planting rates (a crop with exogenously different agronomic determinants of seed density). We interpret our results as evidence of inertia: the initial bias in maize farmers' priors is tilted towards the optimal planting rates of varieties planted in the past. One implication of the finding that farmers historically underinvested in seeding rates is that eliminating this tendency could result in productivity gains.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?
List, J. A. (2003) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/00335530360535144 · Cited by 1,183
Microeconomics of technology adoption
Foster, A. D., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (2010) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124433 · Cited by 1,055
Assefa, Y., Carter, P., Hinds, M., Bhalla, G., Schon, R., Jeschke, M., Paszkiewicz, S., Smith, S., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23362-x · Cited by 222
Testing for Complementarity: Glyphosate Tolerant Soybeans and Conservation Tillage
Perry, E. D., Moschini, G., & Hennessy, D. A. (2016) · American Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/ajae/aaw001 · Cited by 61
Self-citationNeonicotinoids in U.S. maize: Insecticide substitution effects and environmental risk
Perry, E. D., & Moschini, G. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102320 · Cited by 34
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 45
- 10.1126/science.247.4945.920 · DOI
- 10.2307/2295952 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2135/cropsci2016.04.0215 · DOI
- Benjamin Daniel J., 2019, Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgement Biases, Handbook of Behavioral Economics, 1, 69
- 10.1257/aer.90.4.1034 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/qje/qjx009 · DOI
- 10.2135/cropsci2013.10.0709 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1287/mksc.2013.0805 · DOI
- 10.1111/1756-2171.12290 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053524 · DOI
- 10.1257/aer.100.1.35 · DOI · Paper page
- Coulter Jeff, 2021, Optimal Corn Plant Populations in Minnesota
- 10.2134/agronj2007.0106 · DOI
- DeGroot Morris H., 2005, Optimal Statistical Decisions
- 10.1257/aer.98.2.482 · DOI
- 10.1257/aer.101.6.2350 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0065-2113(05)86002-X · DOI · Paper page
- Emerick Kyle, 2021, Farmer Field Days and Demonstrator Selection for Increasing Technology Adoption, Review of Economics and Statistics, 103, 680
- 10.1287/mksc.15.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1086/601447 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/agj2.20203 · DOI
- 10.2307/1905380 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00737.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/jep.32.1.155 · DOI
- 10.1093/qje/qju015 · DOI
- Henckel Timo, 2021, Belief Adjustment: A Double Hurdle Model and Experimental Evidence, Experimental Economics, 1
- Hennessy David A., 2021, Characterizing the Decision Process in Setting Corn and Soybean Seeding Rates, Journal of Extension
- 10.2307/2534775 · DOI
- 10.2134/agronj2007.0210 · DOI
- Lee Seungki, 2021, Agricultural Innovation and Adaptation to Climate Change: Insights from Genetically Engineered Maize
- 10.1086/671137 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00393.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S1574-0072(01)10005-8 · DOI
- 10.1002/aepp.13008 · DOI
- Olmstead Alan L., 2008, Creating Abundance
- 10.1088/1748-9326/aae9b8 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.12.027 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/h0023653 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60582-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/jeea.12104 · DOI
- 10.3982/ECTA7749 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1257/jel.49.2.326 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/318605 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.fcr.2003.11.013 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.021 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Perry, E. D., Hennessy, D. A., & Moschini, G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Agricultural Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-12-28
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1388-1410
- ISSN
- 0002-9092
- 1467-8276
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty and learning in a technologically dynamic industry: Seed density in U.S. maize. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ajae.12276
- The paper
- Perry, E. D., Hennessy, D. A., & Moschini, G. (2022). Uncertainty and learning in a technologically dynamic industry: Seed density in U.S. maize. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12276