2003
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8276.00106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Crop‐Yield Distributions Revisited

Abstract: This article revisits the issue of crop-yield distributions using improved model specifications, estimation, and testing procedures that address the concerns raised in recent literature, which could have invalidated previous findings of yield nonnormality. It concludes that some aggregate and farm-level yield distributions are nonnormal, kurtotic, and right or left skewed, depending on the circumstances. The advantages of utilizing nonnormal versus normal probability distribution function models, and the conse… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
69
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
5
69
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of this study may depend to some degree on how the technology trend is modeled; it is, therefore, worth considering other options. Because explicit modeling of the underlying technological processes would require a knowledge of crop variety and management, two practical options for modeling the yield technology trend remain-(i) fitting a given trend parameterization (e.g., polynomial) using least squares (Just and Weninger 1999), and (ii) assuming the form of the probability density function (PDF) of detrended yield, and of the form of the technology trend, with subsequent determination of the trend using maximum likelihood (Moss and Shonkwiler 1993;Ramirez et al 2003). Because the form of the PDF of yield cannot be determined a priori (e.g., Atwood et al 2003), we use the first of these methods to determine alternative technology trends; linear ( y ϭ a ϩ bt), quadratic ( y ϭ a ϩ bt ϩ ct 2 ), and cubic ( y ϭ a ϩ bt ϩ ct 2 ϩ dt 3 ) trends were fitted to either the whole time series or piecewise to each half of the time series (section 3b).…”
Section: B Weather and Yield Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this study may depend to some degree on how the technology trend is modeled; it is, therefore, worth considering other options. Because explicit modeling of the underlying technological processes would require a knowledge of crop variety and management, two practical options for modeling the yield technology trend remain-(i) fitting a given trend parameterization (e.g., polynomial) using least squares (Just and Weninger 1999), and (ii) assuming the form of the probability density function (PDF) of detrended yield, and of the form of the technology trend, with subsequent determination of the trend using maximum likelihood (Moss and Shonkwiler 1993;Ramirez et al 2003). Because the form of the PDF of yield cannot be determined a priori (e.g., Atwood et al 2003), we use the first of these methods to determine alternative technology trends; linear ( y ϭ a ϩ bt), quadratic ( y ϭ a ϩ bt ϩ ct 2 ), and cubic ( y ϭ a ϩ bt ϩ ct 2 ϩ dt 3 ) trends were fitted to either the whole time series or piecewise to each half of the time series (section 3b).…”
Section: B Weather and Yield Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the second step the crop yields are detrended. For this purpose a variety of regression models such as linear (Goodwin and Mahul, 2004;Adhikari et al, 2012), quadratic (Lu et al, 2008;Adhikari et al, 2012), and polynomials (Ramirez et al, 2003) have been used in the literature. In addition, Deng et al (2008) and Vedenov and Barnett (2004) applied log-linear model.…”
Section: Yield Estimation Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As revealed by extensive studies of historical and more recent data on yields (Day 1965;Gallagher 1986;Ramirez et al 2003;Sherrick et al 2004), the form of the distribution depends on the crop, and may depend on the average yield level and many local or regional conditions (mainly climatic). Biological and technical progress has allowed mean values and standard deviations for yields to increase considerably over the last two centuries.…”
Section: Types Of Statistical Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This problem has been discussed widely (Gallagher 1986;Just and Weninger 1999;Atwood et al 2003;Ramirez et al 2003), with many cases of skewed distributions (both negative and positive) being described.…”
Section: Types Of Statistical Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%