The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Potential Uses and Limitations of Crop Models
Abstract
Crop models have many current and potential uses for answering questions in research, crop management, and policy. Models can assist in synthesis of research understanding about the interactions of genetics, physiology, and the environment, integration across disciplines, and organization of data. They can assist in preseason and in‐season management decisions on cultural practices, fertilization, irrigation, and pesticide use. Crop models can assist policy makers by predicting soil erosion, leaching of agrichemicals, effects of climatic change, and large‐area yield forecasts. Cautions and limitations in model uses are suggested, because appropriate use for a particular purpose depends on whether the model complexity is appropriate to the question being asked and whether the model has been tested in diverse environments. There is a need for both complex and simple models. In some cases, simple models are not appropriate because they are not programmed to address a particular phenomenon. In other cases, complex models are not appropriate because they may require inputs that are not practical to obtain in a field situation. Modelers need to be forthright in model description and promotion. For example, what does a given model respond to? What are the limitations of the model? What factors does the model not address? What are the limitations of inputs to run the models? Examples are given of model use to evaluate genetic improvement in photosynthesis and seed‐filling duration, yield response to planting date and row spacing, and effects of change in seasonal temperature. We believe that use of crop growth models will play an increasingly important role in research understanding, crop management, and policy questions.
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
Cited by
The DSSAT cropping system model
Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J., Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, L. A., Wilkens, P. W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A. J., & Ritchie, J. T. (2003) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s1161-0301(02)00107-7 · Cited by 4,465
Self-citationSteduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Raes, D., & Fereres, E. (2009) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0139s · Cited by 1,878
Palmer, T. N., Alessandri, A., Andersen, U., Cantelaube, P., Davey, M., Délécluse, P., Déqué, M., Díez, E., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Feddersen, H., et al. (2004) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-85-6-853 · Cited by 959
Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Jeuffroy, M. H., Ruget, F., Nicoullaud, B., Gate, P., Devienne-Barret, F., Antonioletti, R., Durr, C., et al. (1998) · Agronomie · doi:10.1051/agro:19980501 · Cited by 817
Sultan, B., & Gaetani, M. (2016) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01262 · Cited by 553
Metadata
- Authors
- Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., & Pickering, N. B.
- Venue
- Agronomy Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 704-716
- ISSN
- 0002-1962 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0645
- OpenAlex
- W2085446849
- Cited by
- 605
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Potential Uses and Limitations of Crop Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050005x
- The paper
- Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., & Pickering, N. B. (1996). Potential Uses and Limitations of Crop Models. Agronomy Journal. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800050005x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.