Advertisement

Soil and Crop Choice

  • Peter Berck
  • Lunyu XieEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 50)

Abstract

This contribution uses econometric analysis to uncover the various factors driving crop choice in six states along the Mississippi River. Aside from temperature and precipitation, soil characteristics are also included as explanatory factors—which is a factor often omitted from many studies. The analysis shows soil to be a key determinant of corn and soybean area in the regions studied.

References

  1. Anderson, S., Wang, C. & Zhao, J. (2012). Let them eat switchgrass? Modeling the displacement of existing food crops by new bioenergy feedstocks. s.l.:s.n.Google Scholar
  2. Baskerville, G., & Emin, P. (1969). Rapid estimation of heat accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecology, 50, 514–517.Google Scholar
  3. Braulke, M. (1982). A note on the Nerlove model of agricultural supply response. International Economic Review, 23(1), 241–244.Google Scholar
  4. Chavas, J.-P., & Holt, M. T. (1990). Acreage decisions under risk: The case of corn and soybeans. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3), 529–538.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, J.-S., & Helmberger, P. G. (1993). How sensitive are crop yields to price changes and Farm programs? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 25, 237–244.Google Scholar
  6. Hausman, C. (2012). Biofuels and land use change: Sugarcane and soybean acreage response in Brazil. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(2), 163–187.Google Scholar
  7. Huang, H., & Khanna, M. (2010). An econometric analysis of US crop yield and cropland acreage: Implications for the impact of climate change (pp. 25–27). Denver, Colorado, s.n.Google Scholar
  8. Just, R. E. (1974). An investigation of the importance of risk in farmers’ decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
  9. Lin, W., & Dismukes, R. (2007). Supply response under risk: Implications for counter-cyclical payments’ production impact. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29(1), 64–86.Google Scholar
  10. Lobell, D. B., Banziger, M., Magorokosho, C., & Vivek, B. (2011). Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nature Climate Change, 1(1), 42–45.Google Scholar
  11. Mueller, R., & Seffrin, R. (2006). New methods and satellites: A program update on the NASS cropland data layer acreage program. Remote Sensing Support to Crop Yield Forecast and Area Estimates, ISPRS Archives, 36(8), 48.Google Scholar
  12. Nerlove, M. (1956). Estimates of the elasticities of supply of selected agricultural commodities. Journal of Farm Economics, 38(2), 496–509.Google Scholar
  13. Schlenker, W., & Roberts, M. J. (2009). Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15594–15598.Google Scholar
  14. Searchinger, T., et al. (2008). Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240.Google Scholar
  15. Taheripour, F., Tyner, W. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2011). Global land use changes due to the US cellulosic biofuel program simulated with the GTAP model. Argonne National Laboratory. http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/luc_ethanol.
  16. Xie, L., Lewis, S. M., Auffhammer, M. et al. (2018). Environmental and Resource Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0271-7.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Energy Economics, School of Applied EconomicsRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations