Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28701818›Full record

ArticleAgricultural systems2017

Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science.

James W Jones, John M Antle, Bruno Basso, Kenneth J Boote, Richard T Conant, Ian Foster, H Charles J Godfray, Mario Herrero, Richard E Howitt, Sander Janssen and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Agricultural systems, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
77.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 431 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Data quality challenges of AIGC application in smart agriculture.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

James W JonesUniversity of Florida, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
John M AntleOregon State University, USA.
Bruno BassoMichigan State University, USA.
Kenneth J BooteUniversity of Florida, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Richard T ConantColorado State University, USA.
Ian FosterUniversity of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, USA.
H Charles J GodfrayOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, Department of Zoology, South Parks Rd., Oxford OX1 3PS, UK.
Mario HerreroCSIRO, Australia.
Richard E HowittUniversity of California-Davis, USA.
Sander JanssenWageningen University, Netherlands.
Brian A KeatingCSIRO, Australia.
Rafael Munoz-CarpenaUniversity of Florida, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Cheryl H PorterUniversity of Florida, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Cynthia RosenzweigNASA/Columbia University, USA.
Tim R WheelerUniversity of Reading, UK.
Florida Museum of Natural History · USCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUArgonne National Laboratory · USColorado State University · USColumbia University · USMichigan State University · USOregon State University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Reading · GBWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review the current state of agricultural systems science, focusing in particular on the capabilities and limitations of agricultural systems models. We discuss the state of models relative to five different Use Cases spanning field, farm, landscape, regional, and global spatial scales and engaging questions in past, current, and future time periods. Contributions from multiple disciplines have made major advances relevant to a wide range of agricultural system model applications at various spatial and temporal scales. Although current agricultural systems models have features that are needed for the Use Cases, we found that all of them have limitations and need to be improved. We identified common limitations across all Use Cases, namely 1) a scarcity of data for developing, evaluating, and applying agricultural system models and 2) inadequate knowledge systems that effectively communicate model results to society. We argue that these limitations are greater obstacles to progress than gaps in conceptual theory or available methods for using system models. New initiatives on open data show promise for addressing the data problem, but there also needs to be a cultural change among agricultural researchers to ensure that data for addressing the range of Use Cases are available for future model improvements and applications. We conclude that multiple platforms and multiple models are needed for model applications for different purposes. The Use Cases provide a useful framework for considering capabilities and limitations of existing models and data.

Indexed as

Agricultural dataCrop modelsEconomic modelsIntegrated agricultural systems modelsLivestock modelsUse cases

Identifiers

PMID28701818
PMCPMC5485672
OpenAlexW2532936747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.