The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research
Open accessAbstract
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is widely promoted as an approach for reorienting agricultural development under the realities of climate change. Prioritising research-for-development activities is crucial, given the need to utilise scarce resources as effectively as possible. However, no framework exists for assessing and comparing different CSA research investments. Several aspects make it challenging to prioritise CSA research, including its multi-dimensional nature (productivity, adaptation and mitigation), the uncertainty surrounding many climate impacts, and the scale and temporal dependencies that may affect the benefits and costs of CSA adoption. Here we propose a framework for prioritising agricultural research investments across scales and review different approaches to setting priorities among agricultural research projects. Many priority-setting case studies address the short- to medium-term and at relatively local scales. We suggest that a mix of actions that span spatial and temporal time scales is needed to be adaptive to a changing climate, address immediate problems and create enabling conditions for enduring change.
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
Cites
O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., van Ruijven, B. J., van Vuuren, D. P., Birkmann, J., Kok, K., et al. (2017) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004 · Cited by 3,359
A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., & Chhetri, N. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2153 · Cited by 2,333
APSIM – evolution towards a new generation of agricultural systems simulation
Holzworth, D. P., Huth, N. I., deVoil, P. G., Zurcher, E. J., Herrmann, N. I., McLean, G., Chenu, K., van Oosterom, E. J., Snow, V., Murphy, C., et al. (2014) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.07.009 · Cited by 1,756
Self-citationSustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies
Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1234485 · Cited by 1,741
Self-citationHerrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M. C., Thornton, P. K., Blümmel, M., Weiss, F., Grace, D., & Obersteiner, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1308149110 · Cited by 1,254
Self-citationAgriculture in 2050: Recalibrating Targets for Sustainable Intensification
Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W., & Mortensen, D. A. (2017) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bix010 · Cited by 1,004 · cited 1×
“Estimates of the increase needed vary between 25 and 70%, depending on the assumptions made about efficiency and consumption pattern changes (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Hunter et al., 2017).”
BackgroundEstimating the world's potentially available cropland using a bottom-up approach
Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Ferreira, L., Grau, R., Mayaux, P., Meyfroidt, P., Morton, D. C., Rudel, T. K., Gasparri, I., & Munger, J. (2013) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.005 · Cited by 348
Kristjanson, P. M., Swallow, B. M., Rowlands, G. J., Kruska, R. L., & de Leeuw, P. N. (1999) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(98)00086-9 · Cited by 328
Costs and benefits of climate-smart agriculture: The case of the Dry Corridor in Guatemala
Sain, G., Loboguerrero, A. M., Corner-Dolloff, C., Lizarazo, M., Nowak, A., Martínez-Barón, D., & Andrieu, N. (2017) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.004 · Cited by 155
Overcoming barriers to the adoption of climate-friendly practices in agriculture
(2017) · OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers · doi:10.1787/97767de8-en · Cited by 80
Cited by
Abegunde, V. O., Sibanda, M., & Obi, A. (2019) · Climate · doi:10.3390/cli7110132 · Cited by 293
Adoption by adaptation: moving from Conservation Agriculture to conservation practices
Rodenburg, J., Büchi, L., & Haggar, J. (2021) · International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability · doi:10.1080/14735903.2020.1785734 · Cited by 85
Metadata
- Authors
- Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., Bunn, C., Friedmann, M., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Howden, M., Kilcline, K., Nangia, V., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Kumar, S., West, P. C., & Keating, B.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 167
- Pages
- 161-175
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2894867854
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 10.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.009
- The paper
- Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., Bunn, C., Friedmann, M., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Howden, M., Kilcline, K., Nangia, V., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Kumar, S., West, P. C., & Keating, B. (2018). A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.009
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.
