The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Review: Environmental biology and crop improvement
Abstract
The average yield of Australia’s major grain crop, wheat, rose at its fastest rate ever during the last decade. The environmental biology behind this advance was predominantly ecological and nutritional — endemic root diseases were controlled through better management of inoculum levels, and the consequently healthier crops were more responsive to fertiliser, especially nitrogen. Applying nitrogen fertilisers became less risky; farmers used much more and thereby achieved much higher yields. Despite Australia’s reputation for being drought prone, its crop yields have not hitherto been typically limited by water — poor health and poor nutrition have been more influential. Improvements in the management of health and nutrition have resulted in many crops now being limited by water, so the effectiveness with which that water is used in producing grain has become more important — capturing more of it, using it effectively in producing photosynthate, and ensuring that a large fraction of that photosynthate is converted into grain. Further improvement will come from the steady 1% per year achieved by breeders, overlain by agronomic advances based on deeper ecophysiological understanding of the interaction between roots and soil biota, how roots access resources in the subsoil, and the basis of spatial variation in yield across a paddock.
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
French, R., & Schultz, J. (1984) · Australian Journal of Agricultural Research · doi:10.1071/ar9840743 · Cited by 666
Cited by
Understanding plant responses to drought—from genes to the whole plant.
Chaves, M. M., Maroco, J. P., & Pereira, J. S. (2003) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp02076 · Cited by 3,845
Strategies and agronomic interventions to improve the phosphorus-use efficiency of farming systems
Simpson, R. J., Oberson, A., Culvenor, R. A., Ryan, M. H., Veneklaas, E. J., Lambers, H., Lynch, J. P., Ryan, P. R., Delhaize, E., Smith, F. A., et al. (2011) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-011-0880-1 · Cited by 462
Monclus, R., Dreyer, E., Villar, M., Delmotte, F. M., Delay, D., Petit, J., Barbaroux, C., Le Thiec, D., Bréchet, C., & Brignolas, F. (2006) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01630.x · Cited by 455
Resilience, Adaptive Capacity, and the "Lock-in Trap" of the Western Australian Agricultural Region
Allison, H. E., & Hobbs, R. J. (2004) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-00641-090103 · Cited by 384
Improving Productivity of Crops in Water-Limited Environments
Passioura, J. B., & Angus, J. F. (2010) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(10)06002-5 · Cited by 364
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Passioura, J. B.
- Venue
- Functional Plant Biology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2002-05-24
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 537-546
- ISSN
- 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
- 1445-4416
- OpenAlex
- W2070903258
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Review: Environmental biology and crop improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/fp02020
- The paper
- Passioura, J. B. (2002). Review: Environmental biology and crop improvement. Functional Plant Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/fp02020
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.