Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Development and Administration
2.2. Open-Ended Response Coding
2.3. Data Processing and Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ahmed, S.; Stepp, J.R.; Orians, C.; Griffin, T.; Matyas, C.; Robbat, A.; Cash, S.; Xue, D.; Long, C.; Unachukwu, U.; et al. Effects of extreme climate events on tea (Camellia sinensis) functional quality validate indigenous farmer knowledge and sensory preferences in tropical China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menalled, F.D.; Landis, D.A.; Dyer, L. Research and extension supporting ecologically based IPM systems. J. Crop Improv. 2004, 11, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, N.; Ross, H.; Lynam, T.; Perez, P.; Leitch, A. Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKey, D.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Cliff, J.; Gleadow, R. Chemical ecology in coupled human and natural systems: People, manioc, multitrophic interactions and global change. Chemoecology 2010, 20, 109–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langan-Fox, J.; Wirth, A.; Code, S.; Langfield-Smith, K.; Wirth, A. Analyzing shared and team mental models. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2001, 28, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abel, N.; Ross, H.; Walker, P. Mental models in rangeland research, communication and management. Rangel. J. 1998, 20, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozesmi, U.; Ozesmi, S.L. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognition mapping approach. Ecol. Model. 2004, 176, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, M.G.; Fischhoff, B.; Bostrom, A.; Atman, C. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Pilewort, C.; Hare, M. Processes of social learning in integrated water management. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14, 193–206. [Google Scholar]
- Kolkman, M.J.; Kok, M.; van der Veen, A. Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Phys. Chem. Earth 2005, 30, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson-Laird, P.N. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, J.R.; Rutherford, A. Mental models: Theory and application in human factors. Hum. Factors 1989, 31, 617–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbour, R.; Gallandt, E.R.; Zwickle, S.; Wilson, R.S.; Doohan, D. Organic farmer knowledge and perceptions are associated with on-farm weed seedbank densities in northern New England. Weed Sci. 2014, 62, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedecker, J.J.; Masiunas, J.B.; Davis, A.S.; Courtney, G. Weed management practice selection among Midest U.S. organic growers. Weed Sci. 2014, 62, 520–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banes, J.; Herbohn, J.; Russel, I. The influence of farmers’ mental models on an agroforestry extension program in the Philippines. Small-Scale For. 2010, 10, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoffman, M.; Lubell, M.; Hillis, V. Linking knowledge and action through mental models of sustainable agriculture. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 13016–13021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- National Agriculture Statistic Service. Montana Office of USDA’s NASS. 2015. Available online: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Roberts, C. Mixing Modes of Data Collection in Surveys: A Methodological Review. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods NCRM Methods Review Papers NCRM/008. 2007. Available online: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/418/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-008.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Grimberg, B.I.; Ahmed, S.; Elis, C.; Miller, Z.; Menalled, F. Climate Change Perceptions and Observations of Agricultural Stakeholders in the Northern Great Plains. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neuendorf, K. The Content Analysis Guidebook; Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bray, R.J.; Curtis, J.T. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 1957, 27, 325–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.J. PERMANOVA. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance. A Computer Program. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland: New Zealand, 2005. Available online: http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/1_124959686.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Lance, G.N.; Williams, W.T. A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies. Comput. J. 1967, 9, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, M.; Wang, B. Implementing Multiple Comparisons on Pearson Chi-Square Test for an R×C Contingency Table in SAS®; SAS Global Forum; Statistical Analysis Software: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings14/1544-2014.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Dufrene, M.; Legendre, P. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 1997, 67, 345–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013; Available online: http://www.R-project.org (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Roberts, D.W. Labdsv. Ordination and Multivariate Analysis for Ecology. R Package Version 1. 2007. Available online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/labdsv/labdsv.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Wickham, H. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 40, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickham, H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J. Stat. Softw. 2007, 21, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, D.W. Optpart: Optimal Partitioning of Similarity Relations. R Package Version: 2.0-1. 2010. Available online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/optpart/optpart.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Maechler, M.; Rousseeuw, P.; Struyf, A.; Hubert, M.; Hornik, K. Cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R Package Version 2.0.1. 2012. Available online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cluster/ (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Adler, D.; Murdoch, D. Rgl: 3D Visualization Device System (OpenGL). R Package Version 0.75. 2007. Available online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgl (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Prost, L.; Berthet, E.T.; Cerf, M.; Jeuffroy, M.-H.; Labatut, J.; Meynard, J.M. Innovative design for agriculture in the move towards sustainability: Scientific challenges. Res. Eng. Des. 2017, 28, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmed, S.; Stepp, J.R. Beyond yields: Climate effects on specialty crop quality and agroecological management. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2016, 4, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toma, P.; Massari, S.; Miglietta, P.P. Natural resource use efficiency and economic productivity. In Life Cycle Approaches to Sustainable Regional Development; Massari, S., Sonnemann, G., Balkau, F., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 143–148. ISBN 9781138940604. [Google Scholar]
- Menalled, F.D.; Grimberg, B.; Jones, C. Evaluation of agricultural professionals’ perceptions and knowledge on sustainable agriculture: A useful step in the development of an on-line extension program. J. Agric. Educ. 2009, 50, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, K.D. Agroecology in Action: Extending Alternative Agriculture through Social Networks (Food, Health, and the Environment); The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; 291p, ISBN 0262731800. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, B.; Blair, H.; Gray, D.; Kemp, P.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Sewell, A.M. Agricultural science in the wild: A social network analysis of farmer knowledge exchange. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nowak, P.J.; Cabot, P.E. Human dimension of resource management programs. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 59, 128A–135A. [Google Scholar]
- Viseu, A. Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature 2015, 525, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, R.R.; Deletic, A.; Wong, T.H.F. Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyze collaboration. Nature 2015, 525, 315–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eckert, E.; Bell, A.A. Invisible force: Farmers’ mental models and how they influence learning and actions. J. Ext. 2005, 43, 3FEA2. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, R.J.; Davies, G.; Moore, H.; Grundy, A.C.; Mead, A. Organic weed management: A review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 377–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Wang, X. Application of optimal harvesting decision model to the analysis of Chinese forestry economic policy. Chin. J. Popul. Res. Environ. 2013, 11, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbour, R.; Zwickle, S.; Gallandt, E.; McPhee, K.; Wilson, R.; Doohan, D. Mental models of organic weed management: Comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 29, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gornish, E.S.; Roche, L.M. Cooperative Extension is key to unlocking public engagement with science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 487–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Leo, F.; Miglietta, P.P. The contribution of environmental indicators to the sustainable performance of countries. Int. J. Sustain. Policy Pract. 2015, 11, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macé, K.; Morlon, P.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Quéré, L. Time scales as a factor in decision-making by French farmers on weed management in annual crops. Agric. Syst. 2007, 93, 115–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freitas, M.R.; Matias, S.V.B.G.; Macedo, R.L.G.; Venturin, N. Socio-ecological insights into the development of agrarian professionals. Chin. J. Popul. Res. Environ. 2013, 11, 352–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- De Leo, F.; Gravili, G.; Miglietta, P.P. Social media and environmental sustainability: An overview of European countries. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckert, E.; Bell, A.A. Continuity and change: Themes of mental model development among small-scale farmers. J. Ext. 2006, 44, 1FEA2. [Google Scholar]
- Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L.; Pigford, A.E.; Hickey, G.M. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 116–121. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2006. Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_Ag_Innovation.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).
- Klerkx, L.; Hall, A.; Leeuwis, C. Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are innovation brokers the answer? Int. J. Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 2009, 8, 409–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnes, E.; Diaz-Ambrona, C.G.H.; Marin-Gonzalez, O.; Astier, M. Farmer Field Schools (FFSs): A tool empowering sustainability and food security in peasant farming systems in the Nicaraguan Highlands. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cranton, P. Teaching for transformation. In Contemporary Viewpoints on Teaching Adults Effectively: No. 93. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education; Imel, S., Ross-Gordon, J.M., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 63–72. [Google Scholar]
Cluster | Question | Indicator | INDVAL | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | No significant indicators found | |||
P2 | What county do you primarily operate in? | Broadwater County | 0.403 | 0.001 |
P2 | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale L.) | 0.111 | 0.021 |
P2 | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | Musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) | 0.109 | 0.006 |
P2 | Describe your primary crop rotation. | Rangeland | 0.102 | 0.011 |
P2 | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | American Licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota (Nutt.) Pursh) | 0.094 | 0.012 |
P3 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) | 0.700 | 0.001 |
P3 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) | 0.700 | 0.001 |
P3 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Alliums (Amaryllidaceae:Allioidae) | 0.650 | 0.001 |
P3 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Brassicas (Brassicaceae) | 0.600 | 0.001 |
P3 | What crops are most influenced by insects? | Brassicas (Brassicaceae) | 0.600 | 0.001 |
P4 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) | 0.967 | 0.001 |
P4 | What crops are most influenced by weeds? | Flax (Linum usitatissium L.) | 0.576 | 0.001 |
P4 | What crops are most influenced by weeds? | Hay and forage | 0.515 | 0.001 |
P4 | Which crops do you think face the biggest challenge to market? | Flax (L. usitatissium L.) | 0.485 | 0.001 |
P4 | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | Kochia (Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott) | 0.424 | 0.001 |
P5 | What crops are most influenced by disease? | Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) | 0.607 | 0.001 |
P5 | What crops are most influenced by disease? | Lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.) | 0.604 | 0.001 |
P5 | What crops are most influenced by weeds? | Chickpeas (C. arietinum L.) | 0.590 | 0.001 |
P5 | What crops are most influenced by disease? | Oilseed crops | 0.577 | 0.001 |
P6 | Which crops do you think face the biggest challenge to market? | Winter Wheat (T. aestivum L.) | 0.284 | 0.001 |
P6 | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) | 0.261 | 0.001 |
P6 | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) | 0.240 | 0.002 |
P6 | Which crops do you think face the biggest challenge to market? | Barley (H. vulgare L.) | 0.232 | 0.004 |
P6 | What are your ten most problematic insect pests and how difficult are they to manage? | Sawflies (Hymenoptera:Symphyta) | 0.213 | 0.001 |
Stakeholder | ||||
CG | How long have you been in your agricultural profession? | Increasing duration | 0.257 | 0.001 |
CG | What county do you primarily operate in? | Broadwater County | 0.174 | 0.001 |
CG | What county do you primarily operate in? | Valley County | 0.101 | 0.001 |
RES | What factors most influence yield? | Soil fertility | 0.380 | 0.001 |
RES | What factors most influence yield? | Phytophagous insect pests | 0.369 | 0.001 |
RES | What factors most influence yield? | Precipitation | 0.365 | 0.001 |
RES | What factors most influence yield? | Crop Varieties | 0.334 | 0.001 |
RES | What county do you primarily operate in? | Gallatin | 0.324 | 0.001 |
CON | What crops are influenced the most by disease? | Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) | 0.377 | 0.001 |
CON | What factors most influence yield? | Disease | 0.372 | 0.001 |
CON | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) | 0.367 | 0.001 |
CON | What crops are influenced the most by insects? | Barley (H. vulgare L.) | 0.361 | 0.001 |
CON | What crops are influenced the most by disease? | Barley (H. vulgare L.) | 0.359 | 0.001 |
OGG | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Spring Wheat (T. aestivum L.) | 0.970 | 0.001 |
OGG | What crops are influenced the most by weeds? | Flax (L. usitatissium L.) | 0.576 | 0.001 |
OGG | What crops are influenced the most by weeds? | Hay and forage | 0.515 | 0.001 |
OGG | Which crops do you think face the biggest challenge to market? | Flax (L. usitatissium L.) | 0.485 | 0.001 |
OGG | What are your ten most problematic weed species and how difficult are they to manage? | Kochia (B. scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott) | 0.424 | 0.001 |
OVG | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Lettuce (L. sativa L.) | 0.667 | 0.001 |
OVG | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Tomatoes (S. lycopersicum L.) | 0.667 | 0.001 |
OVG | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Alliums (Amaryllidaceae:Allioidae) | 0.619 | 0.001 |
OVG | Rank the crops you’ve observed are the easiest to produce. | Brassicas (Brassicaceae) | 0.571 | 0.001 |
OVG | What crops are most influenced by insects? | Brassicas (Brassicaceae) | 0.571 | 0.001 |
Cluster | Question | Indicator Domain | INDVAL | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | How do you get your farming information? | Extension and University Outlets | 0.422 | 0.001 |
D1 | What factors determine whether you add fertilizer or not? | Agronomic Factors | 0.33 | 0.001 |
D1 | How do you get your farming information? | Personal Communication | 0.245 | 0.023 |
D1 | Please explain any “on farm” research you are currently conducting. | Specific Inputs | 0.16 | 0.048 |
D2 | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Managing specific pests | 0.313 | 0.009 |
D2 | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Agronomic Factors | 0.264 | 0.014 |
D2 | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Specific Weeds | 0.242 | 0.023 |
D3 | No significant indicator domains found | |||
D4 | What are your experiences with no-till? | Experiential Perceptions | 0.244 | 0.002 |
D5 | What is the most challenging agronomic issue you deal with? Please explain. | Environmental Factors | 0.302 | 0.006 |
D5 | What is the most challenging agronomic issue you deal with? Please explain. | Agronomic Management | 0.29 | 0.033 |
D6 | What is the most challenging agronomic issue you deal with? Please explain. | Agroecological Factors | 0.382 | 0.001 |
Stakeholder | ||||
CON | How do you get your farming information? | Extension and University Outlets | 0.276 | 0.001 |
CON | How do you get your farming information? | Media | 0.169 | 0.036 |
OGG | What are your experiences with no-till? | Duration of Practice | 0.288 | 0.001 |
OGG | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Specific Weeds | 0.269 | 0.001 |
OGG | What is the most challenging agronomic issue you deal with? Please explain. | Agroecological Factors | 0.223 | 0.002 |
OGG | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Environmental Factors | 0.223 | 0.001 |
OGG | What factors influence your crop rotations? | Economic Factors | 0.221 | 0.003 |
OVG | What factors determine whether you add fertilizer or not? | Social Factors | 0.223 | 0.001 |
OVG | What factors influence your crop rotations? | Agronomic Management | 0.223 | 0.008 |
OVG | What marketing research do you feel is most needed? | Social Factors | 0.181 | 0.002 |
OVG | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Agronomic Factors | 0.179 | 0.037 |
OVG | What is the most challenging agronomic issue you deal with? Please explain. | Environmental Factors | 0.137 | 0.024 |
CG | No significant indicator domains found | |||
RES | Please explain any “on farm” research you are currently conducting. | Agronomic Factors | 0.146 | 0.005 |
RES | Please explain any “on farm” research you are currently conducting. | Managing specific pests | 0.123 | 0.004 |
RES | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Marketing research | 0.095 | 0.038 |
RES | What insect research do you feel is most needed? | Ecological Factors | 0.077 | 0.027 |
RES | Please explain any “on farm” research you are currently conducting. | Beneficial Insects | 0.072 | 0.028 |
Custer | Question | Indicator Subdomain | INDVAL | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | No significant indicators found | |||
S2 | No significant indicators found | |||
S3 | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Revenue streams and specific markets | 0.105 | 0.031 |
S3 | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Unspecified integrated pest management | 0.094 | 0.050 |
S4 | No significant indicators found | |||
S5 | What marketing research do you feel is most needed? | Prediction and forecasting | 0.106 | 0.037 |
S5 | What disease research do you feel is most needed? | Soil borne diseases | 0.097 | 0.042 |
S6 | How do you get your farming information? | University faculty | 0.170 | 0.017 |
S6 | What soil fertility research do you feel is most need? | Effects on plant community structure | 0.143 | 0.025 |
S6 | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | GPS and mapping | 0.143 | 0.036 |
S6 | What marketing research do you feel is most needed? | Nutritive value | 0.136 | 0.035 |
S6 | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Foliar-applied fungicides | 0.136 | 0.026 |
Stakeholder | ||||
CON | What are your experiences with no-till? | Had experience with no-till | 0.261 | 0.001 |
CON | What factors determine whether you add fertilizer or not? | Soil test results | 0.179 | 0.023 |
CON | How do you get your farming information? | Field demonstrations | 0.128 | 0.011 |
CON | How do you get your farming information? | Internet resources | 0.128 | 0.031 |
CON | How do you get your farming information? | Workshops | 0.102 | 0.023 |
OGG | What are your experiences with no-till? | No experience with no-till | 0.466 | 0.001 |
OGG | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) | 0.354 | 0.001 |
OGG | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Perennial weeds | 0.336 | 0.001 |
OGG | What weed research do you feel is most needed? | Dicotyledonous weeds | 0.296 | 0.001 |
OGG | What are your experiences with no-till? | Not feasible | 0.249 | 0.001 |
OVG | What factors determine whether you add fertilizer or not? | Personal knowledge | 0.270 | 0.001 |
OVG | What factors influence your selection of crop rotations? | Point in a predetermined crop rotation | 0.264 | 0.001 |
OVG | What factors influence your selection of crop rotations? | Nutrient biogeochemistry | 0.173 | 0.001 |
OVG | What marketing research do you feel is most needed? | Education | 0.155 | 0.003 |
OVG | What specific research would have the most impact on your production system? | Perennial weed management | 0.146 | 0.001 |
CG | How do you get your farming information? | Periodicals | 0.106 | 0.038 |
RES | How do you get your farming information? | Peer-reviewed journals | 0.219 | 0.001 |
RES | What soil fertility research do you feel is most needed? | Nitrogen cycling and biogeochemistry | 0.219 | 0.005 |
RES | How do you get your farming information? | Neighbors and colleagues | 0.145 | 0.017 |
RES | Please explain any “on farm” research you are currently conducting. | Specialized crop varieties | 0.115 | 0.008 |
RES | What factors determine whether you add fertilizer or not? | Leaching and volatilization potential | 0.081 | 0.012 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
McKenzie, S.; Parkinson, H.; Mangold, J.; Burrows, M.; Ahmed, S.; Menalled, F. Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4096. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114096
McKenzie S, Parkinson H, Mangold J, Burrows M, Ahmed S, Menalled F. Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers. Sustainability. 2018; 10(11):4096. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114096
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcKenzie, Sean, Hilary Parkinson, Jane Mangold, Mary Burrows, Selena Ahmed, and Fabian Menalled. 2018. "Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers" Sustainability 10, no. 11: 4096. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114096
APA StyleMcKenzie, S., Parkinson, H., Mangold, J., Burrows, M., Ahmed, S., & Menalled, F. (2018). Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers. Sustainability, 10(11), 4096. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114096