The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 45 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification
Open accessAbstract
As efforts to mitigate climate change increase, there is a need to identify cost-effective ways to avoid emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Agriculture is rightly recognized as a source of considerable emissions, with concomitant opportunities for mitigation. Although future agricultural productivity is critical, as it will shape emissions from conversion of native landscapes to food and biofuel crops, investment in agricultural research is rarely mentioned as a mitigation strategy. Here we estimate the net effect on GHG emissions of historical agricultural intensification between 1961 and 2005. We find that while emissions from factors such as fertilizer production and application have increased, the net effect of higher yields has avoided emissions of up to 161 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (590 GtCO 2 e) since 1961. We estimate that each dollar invested in agricultural yields has resulted in 68 fewer kgC (249 kgCO 2 e) emissions relative to 1961 technology ($14.74/tC, or ∼$4/tCO 2 e), avoiding 3.6 GtC (13.1 GtCO 2 e) per year. Our analysis indicates that investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other commonly proposed mitigation strategies. Further yield improvements should therefore be prominent among efforts to reduce future GHG emissions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper estimates that historical agricultural intensification from 1961 to 2005 avoided large greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land conversion, with an upper estimate of 161 GtC (590 GtCO2e) and a lower-bound estimate of 86.5 GtC. It concludes that investment in yield improvements compares favorably with other mitigation strategies and should be prominent in efforts to reduce future emissions.
Key findings
- Yield gains since 1961 avoided 161 GtC (+104.2/−41.9 GtC) in the AW1 scenario, averaging 3.6 GtC/yr (+2.3/−0.9 GtC/yr), equal to 34% of the 478 GtC emitted by humans between 1850 and 2005. The lower-bound AW2 scenario avoided 86.5 GtC (±24.7 GtC), averaging 1.9 GtC/yr (±0.5 GtC/yr), or 18% of that total.
- AW1 would have required an additional 1,761 Mha of cropland (1,514 Mha more than the real world); AW2 would have required an additional 1,111 Mha (864 Mha more than the real world). Land conversion dominated emissions, with a global average of 105 ±21 tC/ha lost in conversion of land to cropland.
- Each dollar invested in agricultural yields resulted in 68 fewer kgC (249 kgCO2e) emissions relative to 1961 technology, at $14.74/tC (∼$4/tCO2e) in AW1 and $27.43/tC in AW2 under the refined estimate; simple estimates were $7.16/tC and $13.32/tC. This compares favorably with other options available at <$73/tC: buildings (1.49 GtC/yr), energy supply (0.49 GtC/yr), transportation (0.46 GtC/yr), and industry (0.30 GtC/yr).
- Context: between 1961 and 2005 population rose 111% (3.08 to 6.51 billion), crop production rose 162% (1.8 to 4.8 billion tons), cropland grew 27% (960 to 1,208 Mha), and total crop yield increased 135% (1.84 to 3.96 t/ha). In 2005 agricultural production accounted for 1.4–1.7 GtC emissions (10–12% of anthropogenic GHG emissions), with land use change adding 1.5 GtC.
Methods
- The authors calculated agricultural GHG emissions for 1961–2005 and two counterfactual “alternative world” scenarios: AW1 held 1961 yields and fertilizer application rates while meeting real-world production and living standards; AW2 maintained 1961 per capita production using population projections based on 1950–1955 fertility and mortality rates.
- Emissions included N2O from agricultural soils, CH4 from rice cultivation, carbon released from biomass and soil during conversion of forest, shrub, and grassland to cropland, and N2O, CH4, and CO2 from production and use of nitrogenous, phosphate, and potash fertilizers. The analysis used FAO production and yield data, IPCC Tier 1 guidelines, GREET emissions factors, biome carbon values, and cropland-only accounting.
- Cost-effectiveness was assessed using public and private agricultural research spending from 1961 to 2005, with assumptions about the fraction of research relevant to yield improvements and the share of productivity growth attributable to agricultural R&D.
Limitations
- Stated: the counterfactual scenarios are not dynamic; AW1 assumes demand for agricultural products would have been identical without yield improvements, ignoring food-price effects (real prices fell by ∼40% between 1965 and 2000), and AW2 is a lower bound with a more dire lower-bound scenario acknowledged.
- Stated: the analysis excludes livestock, burning of agricultural residues, pesticides, fuel use, agricultural machinery, irrigation, transport, pastureland, and biofuels, and neglects projected increases in meat demand as per capita GDP grows; land carbon values carry ±20% uncertainty.
- Evident: results depend on scenario assumptions and broad cost-effectiveness ranges, and the paper notes difficulty identifying hypothetical expansion regions and the portions of agricultural investment relevant to yield improvements.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 8 Own result · 5 No basis given · 4 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yield gains in agriculture since 1961 have avoided emissions of 86.5 GtC (±24.7 GtC)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW2 Scenario (Lower Estimates).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the AW1 scenario, an additional 1,761 Mha of cropland (an area larger than Russia) would have been needed to achieve the same production levels since 1961 while holding yields and fertilizer intensities constant”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or 864 Mha more cropland than in the RW”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW2 Scenario (Lower Estimates).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This corresponds to 34% of the total 478 GtC emitted by humans between 1850 and 2005”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Canadell JG, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:18866–18870. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702737104. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104)] [[PMC free article](/articles/PMC2141868/)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17962418/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Proc%20Natl%20Acad%20Sci%20USA&title=Contributions%20to%20accelerating%20atmospheric%20CO2%20growth%20from%20economic%20activity,%20carbon%20intensity,%20and%20e source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that the average carbon content (soil + biomass) of land converted in the AW scenarios (and spared in the RW) to be ~105 tC/ha”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > Cost of Carbon Savings.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find that yield gains in agriculture since 1961 have avoided emissions of 161 GtC (+104.2/−41.9 GtC)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or an average of 3.6 GtC/yr (+2.3/−0.9 GtC/yr)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or 1,514 Mha more cropland than in the RW”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This corresponds to 18% of the total 478 GtC emitted by humans between 1850 and 2005”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW2 Scenario (Lower Estimates).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Canadell JG, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:18866–18870. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702737104. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104)] [[PMC free article](/articles/PMC2141868/)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17962418/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Proc%20Natl%20Acad%20Sci%20USA&title=Contributions%20to%20accelerating%20atmospheric%20CO2%20growth%20from%20economic%20activity,%20carbon%20intensity,%20and%20e source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or an average of 1.9 GtC/yr (±0.5 GtC/yr)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW2 Scenario (Lower Estimates).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Attributing 34% of productivity growth (and thus carbon savings, or ∼36 tC/ha) to agricultural R&D and assuming that 70% of R&D is relevant to farm productivity gives a carbon price of $14.74 in AW1 and $27.43 in AW2 (per metric ton of carbon; plotted triangle).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > Cost of Carbon Savings.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Alston JM, Beddow JM, Pardey PG. Agricultural research, productivity, and food prices in the long run. Science. 2009;325:1209–1210. doi: 10.1126/science.1170451. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170451)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19729642/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Science&title=Agricultural%20research,%20productivity,%20and%20food%20prices%20in%20the%20long%20run&author=JM%20Alston&author=JM%20Beddow&author=PG%20Pardey&volume=325&publication_year=2009&pages=1209-1210&pmid=19729642&doi=10.1126/science.1170451&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Evenson RE, Pray C, Rosegrant MW. Agricultural Research and Productivity Growth in India. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute; 1998. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Agricultural%20Research%20and%20Productivity%20Growth%20in%20India&author=RE%20Evenson&author=C%20Pray&author=MW%20Rosegrant&publication_year=1998&)]
- Not checked yetcites [33] Rosegrant MW, Evenson RE. Agricultural productivity and sources of growth in South Asia. Am J Agric Econ. 1992;74:757–761. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Am%20J%20Agric%20Econ&title=Agricultural%20productivity%20and%20sources%20of%20growth%20in%20South%20Asia&author=MW%20Rosegrant&author=RE%20Evenson&volume=74&publication_year=1992&pages=757-761&)] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fertilizer use in the AW2 scenario rises from 31 Mt of nutrient to 67 Mt of nutrient, representing the same constant 1961 intensity of 32 kg/ha”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW2 Scenario (Lower Estimates).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The size and cost of this carbon sink (over 45 years, 3.6 +2.3/−0.9 GtC/yr for AW1 and 1.9 ± 0.5 GtC/yr for AW2) compares favorably with other proposed mitigation options available at <$73/tC in buildings (1.49 GtC/yr), energy supply (0.49 GtC/yr), transportation (0.46 GtC/yr), and industry (0.30 GtC/yr)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > Cost of Carbon Savings.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Barker T, et al. Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L, editors. Climate Change 2007: MitigationContribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 619–690. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Climate%20Change%202007:%20MitigationContribution%20of%20Working%20Group%20III%20to%20the%20Fourth%20Assessment%20Report%20of%20the%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change&author=T%20Barker&p source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we assume that the entirety of public and private investment in agriculture between 1961 and 2005 (estimated at $1,152 billion US) contributed to yield gains achieved during that time period.”
- Also stated in: § Cost of Carbon Savings. · plain
“These two values yield a carbon price for avoided emissions of $7.16 in AW1 and $13.32 in AW2 (per metric ton of carbon; plotted square).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > Cost of Carbon Savings.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Cost of Carbon Savings. · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the RW, total fertilizer use increased to 136 kg/ha, or 165 Mt total”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fertilizer use in the AW1 scenario increases from 31 Mt of nutrient to 88 Mt of nutrient, representing a constant mean annual intensity of 32 kg/ha.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our estimates agree with those reported previously ([12](#r12), [49](#r49), [50](#r50)).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Emissions From Agricultural Soils.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2020. EPA Report 430-R-06-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Global%20Anthropogenic%20Non-CO2%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions,%201990%E2%80%932020.%20EPA%20Report%20430-R-06-003.&publication_year=2006&)]
- Not checked yetcites [49] Davidson EA. The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nat Geosci. 2009;2:659–662. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Nat%20Geosci&title=The%20contribution%20of%20manure%20and%20fertilizer%20nitrogen%20to%20atmospheric%20nitrous%20oxide%20since%201860&author=EA%20Davidson&volume=2&publication_year=2009&pages=659-662&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [50] Mosier A, et al. Closing the global N2O budget: Nitrous oxide emissions through the agricultural nitrogen cycle. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 1998;52:225–248. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Nutr%20Cycl%20Agroecosyst&title=Closing%20the%20global%20N2O%20budget:%20Nitrous%20oxide%20emissions%20through%20the%20agricultural%20nitrogen%20cycle&author=A%20Mosier&volume=52&publication_year=1998&pages=225-248&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“between 1961–2005, global total area equipped for irrigation increased from 139 Mha to 284 Mha, with 75% of this change in Asia (19% in the Americas and Europe, 4% in Africa, and 1% in Oceania).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Irrigation Investment.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The main components of agricultural emissions outside of land use change are N2O released from soils related to the application of nitrogenous fertilizer (38%), CH4 from livestock enteric fermentation, and CH4 and N2O from manure management (38%), CH4 from cultivation of rice (11%), and CH4 and N2O from burning of savannah, forest, and agricultural residues (13%)”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2020. EPA Report 430-R-06-003. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Global%20Anthropogenic%20Non-CO2%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions,%201990%E2%80%932020.%20EPA%20Report%20430-R-06-003.&publication_year=2006&)]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it has been estimated that modified rice drainage and straw incorporation practices could reduce global CH4 emissions from rice cultivation by up to 30%”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Yan X, Akiyama H, Yagi K, Akimoto H. Global estimations of the inventory and mitigation potential of methane emissions from rice cultivation conducted using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2009 10.1029/2008GB003299. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Global%20Biogeochem%20Cycles&title=Global%20estimations%20of%20the%20inventory%20and%20mitigation%20potential%20of%20methane%20emissions%20from%20rice%20cultivation%20conducted%20using%20the%202006%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20guideli source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 2005, agricultural production accounted for 1.4–1.7 gigatons of carbon (GtC) emissions (10–12% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions; 1 GtC = 109 metric tons of carbon), including 0.76 GtC equivalent N2O and 0.90 GtC equivalent CH4”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Smith P, et al. Agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L, editors. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 497–540. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Climate%20Change%202007:%20Mitigation%20Contribution%20of%20Working%20Group%20III%20to%20the%20Fourth%20Assessment%20Report%20of%20the%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change&author=P%20Smith&publication_year=2007&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improvement of crop yields should therefore be prominent among a portfolio of strategies to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Discussion > Conclusion.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In the same year, land use change (e.g., harvesting of forest products and clearing for agriculture) accounted for an additional 1.5 GtC emissions”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Canadell JG, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:18866–18870. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702737104. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104)] [[PMC free article](/articles/PMC2141868/)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17962418/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Proc%20Natl%20Acad%20Sci%20USA&title=Contributions%20to%20accelerating%20atmospheric%20CO2%20growth%20from%20economic%20activity,%20carbon%20intensity,%20and%20e source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Even if yield gains over the next four decades are smaller than those of the previous four decades, the potential to avoid future emissions may be larger and more cost-effective than the 161 GtC of emissions avoided thus far, given that current cropland expansion often occurs in tropical forests and that the remaining forests are carbon-rich relative to many cleared forests”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Discussion > Conclusion.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] Loarie SR, Asner GP, Field CB. Boosted carbon emissions from Amazon deforestation. Geophys Res Lett. 2009;36:L14810. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Geophys%20Res%20Lett&title=Boosted%20carbon%20emissions%20from%20Amazon%20deforestation&author=SR%20Loarie&author=GP%20Asner&author=CB%20Field&volume=36&publication_year=2009&pages=L14810&)] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For “land conversion” emissions, we assume that cropland expansion occurred in the same proportions by biome in the AW1 scenario as in the RW, calculated as in previous studies”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Ramankutty N, Foley JA. Estimating historical changes in global land cover: Croplands from 1700 to 1992. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 1999;13:997–1027. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Global%20Biogeochem%20Cycles&title=Estimating%20historical%20changes%20in%20global%20land%20cover:%20Croplands%20from%201700%20to%201992&author=N%20Ramankutty&author=JA%20Foley&volume=13&publication_year=1999&pages=997-1027&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assume that land expansion occurred across different biomes at the same percentages as in the RW, and we assume the same uncertainty of ±20% for carbon values.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Emissions Due to Conversion of Land to Cropland.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We follow Gibbs et al. ([27](#r27)) and the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1 GHG emissions calculations guidelines ([47](#r47)) and assume that carbon losses from land converted to cropland occur over 1 year and that carbon sequestration in abandoned cropland occurs over 20 years.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Emissions Due to Conversion of Land to Cropland.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Gibbs HK, et al. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: The effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett. 2008;3:034001. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Environ%20Res%20Lett&title=Carbon%20payback%20times%20for%20crop-based%20biofuel%20expansion%20in%20the%20tropics:%20The%20effects%20of%20changing%20yield%20and%20technology&author=HK%20Gibbs&volume=3&publication_year=2008&pages=034001&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=2006%20IPCC%20Guidelines%20for%20National%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Inventories.&publication_year=2006&)]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We assume 70% of land converted to cropland is for crops, and 30% for tree plantations based on FAO trends ([1](#r1)), and that land converted for crops results in loss of 25% of soil carbon, and land converted to plantations results in loss of 10% of soil carbon.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Emissions Due to Conversion of Land to Cropland.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistical database. Available at: <http://faostat.fao.org/>. Accessed June 30, 2009.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This scenario thus provides a reasonable lower bound on carbon savings by projecting the 1961 per capita supply forward (i.e., maintaining 1961 living standards without the increase in supply that drove prices down in the RW).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assume that after a conversion to agricultural land, soil organic carbon content remains the same in the RW and AW scenarios.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Soil Organic Carbon Content Over Time.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Total RW annual livestock-related GHG emissions in 2004 (including feed production, farm operations, enteric fermentation, manure management, and soil emissions from pasture land and feed crops) have been estimated as ∼1.94 GtC/yr equivalent (∼7.1 GtCO2e/yr), of which ∼0.68 GtC/yr equivalent (∼2.5 GtCO2e/yr) is from land use changes”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW2 Scenario.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar TD, Castel V, de Haan C. Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Livestock's%20Long%20Shadow:%20Environmental%20Issues%20and%20Options&author=H%20Steinfeld&author=P%20Gerber&author=TD%20Wassenaar&author=V%20Castel&author=C%20de%20Haan&publication_year=2006&)]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in the AW1 scenario, we do not include any pesticides, fuel use, or transport in the AW2 calculations.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW2 Scenario.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, we assume that burning of agricultural residues is the same in both cases (because total production is the same).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW1 Scenario.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although management practices, such as conservation tillage, can increase soil organic carbon content in both extensive and intensive systems ([15](#r15), [16](#r16)), we do not assume any such gains in the AW scenarios between 1961 and 2005.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Soil Organic Carbon Content Over Time.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 2004;304:1623–1627. doi: 10.1126/science.1097396. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15192216/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Science&title=Soil%20carbon%20sequestration%20impacts%20on%20global%20climate%20change%20and%20food%20security&author=R%20Lal&volume=304&publication_year=2004&pages=1623-1627&pmid=15192216&doi=10.1126/science.1097396&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [16] West TO, Post WM. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2002;66:1930–1946. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Soil%20Sci%20Soc%20Am%20J&title=Soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration%20rates%20by%20tillage%20and%20crop%20rotation:%20A%20global%20data%20analysis&author=TO%20West&author=WM%20Post&volume=66&publication_year=2002&pages=1930-1946&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We follow the methodology outlined by Yan ([14](#r14), [51](#r51)) to calculate methane emissions from rice cultivation and GHGs from the burning of rice straw.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Rice Cultivation.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Yan X, Akiyama H, Yagi K, Akimoto H. Global estimations of the inventory and mitigation potential of methane emissions from rice cultivation conducted using the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2009 10.1029/2008GB003299. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Global%20Biogeochem%20Cycles&title=Global%20estimations%20of%20the%20inventory%20and%20mitigation%20potential%20of%20methane%20emissions%20from%20rice%20cultivation%20conducted%20using%20the%202006%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20guideli source
- Not checked yetcites [51] Yan X, Yagi K, Akiyama H, Akimoto H. Statistical analysis of the major variables controlling methane emission from rice fields. Glob Change Biol. 2005;11:1131–1141. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Glob%20Change%20Biol&title=Statistical%20analysis%20of%20the%20major%20variables%20controlling%20methane%20emission%20from%20rice%20fields&author=X%20Yan&author=K%20Yagi&author=H%20Akiyama&author=H%20Akimoto&volume=11&publication_year=2005&pages=1131-1141&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do not explicitly calculate emissions for livestock, burning of agricultural residues, pesticide and fuel use, agricultural machinery, or irrigation in the RW and AW scenarios, but discuss assumptions and potential differences in these sectors below.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Cropland in the AW Scenarios.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, we assume the same crop yields and fertilizer application rates as in 1961, and scale land use and fertilizer production accordingly”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“using a value of $2,000 per ha gives a total cost of $310 billion, or just under 27% of the maximum global total agricultural investment.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Irrigation Investment.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] Inocencio A, et al. Costs and Performance of Irrigation Projects: A Comparison of Sub-Saharan Africa and Other Developing Regions. Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, Battaramulla; 2007. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Costs%20and%20Performance%20of%20Irrigation%20Projects:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Sub-Saharan%20Africa%20and%20Other%20Developing%20Regions.&author=A%20Inocencio&publication_year=2007&)]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We use the baseline AW land carbon content assumptions described above, which correspond to a global average of 105 ± 21 tC/ha lost (total, including both biomass and soil carbon losses) in conversion of other types of land to cropland.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Carbon Price Calculation.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, we conservatively assume that machinery use and irrigation area remained the same in AW1 and RW.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW1 Scenario.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although carbon savings are not the only benefit of agricultural intensification, this analysis can be used to give an upper bound on the value of carbon savings due to agricultural investment.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Carbon Price Calculation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we do not include any pesticides or fuel use in our analysis, nor do we account for any transport of food in the AW1 scenario.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW1 Scenario.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We estimate global total public and private agricultural investment values for 1961–2005 from ([30](#r30)).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Carbon Price Calculation.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Pardey PG, Beintema N, Dehmer S, Wood S. Agricultural Research: A Growing Global Divide? Washington, DC: Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators Initiative, International Food Policy Research Institute; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Agricultural%20Research:%20A%20Growing%20Global%20Divide?&author=PG%20Pardey&author=N%20Beintema&author=S%20Dehmer&author=S%20Wood&publication_year=2006&)]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“To calculate emissions from agricultural soils, we follow IPCC Tier 1 GHG inventory guidelines by crop group ([47](#r47)).”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Emissions From Agricultural Soils.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, editors. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=2006%20IPCC%20Guidelines%20for%20National%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Inventories.&publication_year=2006&)]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assume that livestock populations are the same in the RW and AW1, because total food and feed production do not change, and thus emissions due to enteric fermentation, manure management, and land conversion to grazing land are identical in both scenarios.”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Additional Assumptions for the AW1 Scenario.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We assign biomass and soil organic carbon content values to each biome from the literature ([27](#r27)–[29](#r29)), and assume an uncertainty of ±20% in these values, reflective of regional differences”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Results > AW1 Scenario (Upper Estimates).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Gibbs HK, et al. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: The effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett. 2008;3:034001. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Environ%20Res%20Lett&title=Carbon%20payback%20times%20for%20crop-based%20biofuel%20expansion%20in%20the%20tropics:%20The%20effects%20of%20changing%20yield%20and%20technology&author=HK%20Gibbs&volume=3&publication_year=2008&pages=034001&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett. 2007;2:045023. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Environ%20Res%20Lett&title=Monitoring%20and%20estimating%20tropical%20forest%20carbon%20stocks:%20Making%20REDD%20a%20reality&author=HK%20Gibbs&author=S%20Brown&author=JO%20Niles&author=JA%20Foley&volume=2&publication_year=2007&pages=045023&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Houghton RA. The annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use, 1850–1990. Tellus B. 1999;51:298–313. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Tellus%20B&title=The%20annual%20net%20flux%20of%20carbon%20to%20the%20atmosphere%20from%20changes%20in%20land%20use,%201850%E2%80%931990&author=RA%20Houghton&volume=51&publication_year=1999&pages=298-313&)] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The global population is expected to reach 8.9 billion by 2050, with food demand expected to rise by 70%”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Discussion > Conclusion.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2006. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=World%20Agriculture:%20Towards%202030/2050&publication_year=2006&)]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“international shipments of food from developed to developing countries would have increased on the order of 30%, and crop area would still have increased by 2.8–4.9% more than it did historically”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Discussion > Implications of AW Scenarios.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Evenson RE, Gollin D. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science. 2003;300:758–762. doi: 10.1126/science.1078710. [[DOI](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078710)] [[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12730592/)] [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?journal=Science&title=Assessing%20the%20impact%20of%20the%20green%20revolution,%201960%20to%202000&author=RE%20Evenson&author=D%20Gollin&volume=300&publication_year=2003&pages=758-762&pmid=12730592&doi=10.1126/science.1078710&)] source
- Not checked yetcites [23] Evenson RE, Gollin D, editors. Crop Variety Improvement and Its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. Wallingford, UK: CABI; 2003. [[Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Crop%20Variety%20Improvement%20and%20Its%20Effect%20on%20Productivity:%20The%20Impact%20of%20International%20Agricultural%20Research&publication_year=2003&)] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The AW1 scenario exogenously specifies that demand for agricultural products over time would have been identical without yield improvements.
“for example, the AW1 scenario exogenously specifies that demand for agricultural products over time would have been identical without yield improvements, thus ignoring the role of food prices (which fell in real terms by ∼40% between 1965 and 2000)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Even without increased agricultural productivity, income growth from productivity gains in other sectors, as well as higher crop demand for nonfood uses, would nevertheless have kept per capita demand at 1961 levels despite any price increases.
“However, we assume that even without increased agricultural productivity, income growth from productivity gains in other sectors, as well as higher crop demand for nonfood uses, would nevertheless have kept per capita demand at 1961 levels despite any price increases”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Yield advancements are directly related to research funding.
“Assuming that yield advancements are directly related to research funding, we assess the cost-effectiveness of mitigation through yield improvements using the ratio of public and private spending on agricultural research since 1961”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A slightly more conservative assumption that 70% of all public and private research was relevant to yield improvements.
“For the global case, a slightly more conservative assumption that 70% of all public and private research was relevant to yield improvements gives a cumulative 45-year total of $806 billion in agricultural investments.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A conservative estimate that the AW2 scenario included no intensive livestock operations.
“thus, a conservative estimate that the AW2 scenario included no intensive livestock operations results in a savings of up to ∼0.58 GtC/yr (∼2.1 GtCO2e/yr) in the livestock sector compared with the RW.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Emissions due to burning of agricultural residues can be conservatively assumed to be 15% lower in AW2 than the real world.
“Emissions due to burning of agricultural residues can be conservatively assumed to be 15% lower in AW2 than RW (the difference in total production), although we do not calculate burning emissions for the RW.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
An assumption of constant intensity for machinery and irrigation results in 5% more irrigated land and 17% fewer agricultural tractors in the AW2 scenario compared with the real world.
“An assumption of constant intensity for machinery and irrigation results in 5% more irrigated land and 17% fewer agricultural tractors in the AW2 scenario compared with the RW.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Fertilizer application rates remain at 1961 levels in both AW scenarios.
“We assume fertilizer application rates remain at 1961 levels in both AW scenarios, and scale fertilizer consumption and associated production emissions accordingly.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For both AW expansion scenarios, the percentages of rain-fed and irrigated rice systems are the same as in the RW, and drainage practices and organic amendments are the same in each scenario.
“For both AW expansion scenarios, we assume that the percentages of rain-fed and irrigated systems are the same as in the RW, and that drainage practices and organic amendments are the same in each scenario.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The same public funding percentage applies to developing and developed world when estimating total agricultural spending in each time period.
“We use the values for public research spending in 1981, 1991, and 2000, and use the same public funding percentage for developing and developed world to estimate total spending in each time period.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Agricultural investment spending grew at a rate of 4.5% between 1961 and 1981.
“We assume a growth rate of 4.5% in spending between 1961–1981, and use the 1981 value to extrapolate back in time”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Agricultural investment increased linearly from 1981 to 2000.
“we assume a linear increase from 1981 to 2000”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Agricultural investment grew at 2.1% annually from 2001 to 2005.
“we estimate the values for 2001–2005 assuming a 2.1% annual growth in agricultural investment ([30](#r30)).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Human populations and their use of land have now transformed ecosystem pattern and process across most of the terrestrial biosphere (1, 2), causing major global changes in biodiversity (3), biogeochemistry (4–6), geomorphic processes (7), and climate (8).”
From Used planet: a global history (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Practices that increase C inputs include (i) improved varieties or species with greater root mass to deposit C in deeper layers where turnover is slower 21 , (ii) adopting crop rotations that provide greater C inputs 22 , (iii) more residue retention 23 , and (iv) cover crops during fallow periods to provide year-round C inputs (Fig. 1).22,24”
From Climate-smart soils (2016) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“global total area equipped for irrigation increased from 139 Mha to 284 Mha, with 75% of this change in Asia (19% in the Americas and Europe, 4% in Africa, and 1% in Oceania). Cost estimates for irrigation investments vary by region ([54](#r54)); using a value of $2,000 per ha gives a total cost of $310 billion”
§ Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification > Methods > Irrigation Investment.
Reported 310000 · recomputed 290000
Citations
Cites
Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
Lal, R. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1097396 · Cited by 8,376
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01014 · Cited by 7,957
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Paustian, K. H., Ravindranath, N. H., & van Amstel, A. R. (2006) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · Cited by 6,706
Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006) · Agritrop (Cirad) · Cited by 4,383
Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504 · Cited by 3,160
Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z. C., Gwary, D. M., Janzen, H. H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B. A., Ogle, S. M., O’Mara, F. P., Rice, C. W., et al. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2184 · Cited by 2,690
Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Balmford, A. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1106049 · Cited by 2,238
Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000
Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1078710 · Cited by 2,228
Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis
West, T. O., & Post, W. M. (2002) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2002.1930 · Cited by 2,215 · cited 1×
“Although management practices, such as conservation tillage, can increase soil organic carbon content in both extensive and intensive systems (15, 16), we do not assume any such gains in the AW scenarios between 1961 and 2005.”
BackgroundCanadell, J. G., Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Field, C. B., Buitenhuis, E. T., Ciais, P., Conway, T. J., Gillett, N. P., Houghton, R. A., & Marland, G. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0702737104 · Cited by 2,136 · cited 2×
“This corresponds to 34% of the total 478 GtC emitted by humans between 1850 and 2005 (11) (Fig.”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2020. EPA Report 430-R-06-003. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2006).
- 10.1079/sum2005291 · DOI
- RE Evenson, C Pray, MW Rosegrant Agricultural Research and Productivity Growth in India (International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, 1998).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,000
Environmental sustainability of biodiesel in Brazil
Castanheira, É. G., Grisoli, R., Freire, F. M. C. S., Garcilasso, V. P., & Coelho, S. T. (2013) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.062 · Cited by 84
A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems
Dale, V. H., Kline, K. L., Kaffka, S. R., & Langeveld, J. W. A. (2013) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9814-4 · Cited by 83
Wegner, G., Murray, K. A., Springmann, M., Müller, A. W., Sokolow, S. H., Saylors, K. E., & Morens, D. M. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101386 · Cited by 99
Andrés Etter, R., McAlpine, C., Seabrook, L., & Wilson, K. A. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.004 · Cited by 82
Urban Food Systems: How Regionalization Can Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation
Pradhan, P., Kriewald, S., Costa, L., Diego Rybski, A., Benton, T. G., Fischer, G., & Kropp, J. P. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c02739 · Cited by 88
Foley, P. A., Crosson, P., Lovett, D. K., Boland, T. M., O’Mara, F. P., & Kenny, D. A. (2011) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.010 · Cited by 82
Avnery, S., Mauzerall, D. L., & Fiore, A. M. (2012) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.12118 · Cited by 96
Benefits of nitrogen for food, fibre and industrial production
Jensen, L. S., Schjoerring, J. K., van der Hoek, K. W., Poulsen, H. D., Zevenbergen, J. F., Pallière, C., Lammel, J., Brentrup, F., Jongbloed, A. W., Willems, J., et al. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976988.006 · Cited by 82
Henderson, B., Godde, C., Hidalgo, D. M., van Wijk, M. T., Silvestri, S., Douxchamps, S., Skinner, E. B., Power, B., Rigolot, C., Cacho, O. J., et al. (2015) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.006 · Cited by 82
Comadira, G., Rasool, B., Karpińska, B., Morris, J., Verrall, S. R., Hedley, P. E., Foyer, C. H., & Hancock, R. D. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erv276 · Cited by 81
Wang, S., Guan, K., Wang, Z., Ainsworth, E. A., Zheng, T., Townsend, P. A., Liu, N., Nafziger, E. D., Masters, M. D., Li, K., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2021.102617 · Cited by 81
Prospects for Increasing Sugarcane and Bioethanol Production on Existing Crop Area in Brazil
Marin, F. R., Júnior, G. B. M., Cassman, K. G., & Grassini, P. (2016) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biw009 · Cited by 81
The effect of biochar management on soil and plant community properties in a boreal forest
Gundale, M. J., Nilsson, M., Pluchon, N., & Wardle, D. A. (2015) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12274 · Cited by 84
Singh, P., Benbi, D. K., & Verma, G. (2020) · Journal of soil science and plant nutrition · doi:10.1007/s42729-020-00383-y · Cited by 80
Gholamrezai, S., Aliabadi, V., & Ataei, P. (2021) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-021-01331-1 · Cited by 84
Unc, A., Altdorff, D., Abakumov, E. V., Adl, S. M., Baldursson, S., Bechtold, M., Cattani, D. J., Firbank, L. G., Grand, S., Guðjónsdóttir, M., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.663448 · Cited by 87
Oteros‐Rozas, E., Martín‐López, B., López, C. A., Palomo, I., & González, J. A. (2013) · The Rangeland Journal · doi:10.1071/rj12092 · Cited by 79
Kirchmann, H., Kätterer, T., Bergström, L., Börjesson, G., & Bolinder, M. A. (2015) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2015.11.006 · Cited by 78
Maneepitak, S., Ullah, H., Datta, A., SHRESTHA, R. P., Shrestha, S., & Kachenchart, B. (2019) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/j.eja.2019.04.002 · Cited by 78
Tidåker, P., Karlsson, H., Carlsson, G., & Röös, E. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.017 · Cited by 78
Soil information in support of policy making and awareness raising
Bouma, J., Broll, G., Crane, T., Dewitte, O., Gardi, C., Schulte, R. P. O., & Towers, W. (2012) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.001 · Cited by 78
Powell, T. W. R., & Lenton, T. M. (2012) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c2ee21592f · Cited by 81
Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. (2017) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.002 · Cited by 80
Change, I. P. O. C. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009157988.008 · Cited by 78
Development of the straw biochar returning concept in China
Meng, J., He, T., Sanganyado, E., Lan, Y., Zhang, W., Han, X., & Chen, W. (2019) · Biochar · doi:10.1007/s42773-019-00019-0 · Cited by 73
Energy implications of the 21st century agrarian transition
Rosa, L., Rulli, M. C., Ali, S. H., Chiarelli, D. D., Dell’Angelo, J., Mueller, N. D., Scheidel, A., Siciliano, G., & D’Odorico, P. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22581-7 · Cited by 79
Eco-Efficiency: from vision to reality
Hershey, C. H. (2012) · CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) · Cited by 73
Dashti, A., Raji, M., Razmi, A. R., Rezaei, N., Zendehboudi, S., & Asghari, M. (2019) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2019.01.019 · Cited by 71
Villoria, N. B. (2019) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab4f57 · Cited by 74
Lab to Farm: Applying Research on Plant Genetics and Genomics to Crop Improvement
Ronald, P. C. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001878 · Cited by 74
Xiong, C., Yang, D., & Huo, J. (2016) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su8030262 · Cited by 72
Impacts of and adaptation to climate change on the oil palm in Malaysia: a systematic review
Abubakar, A., Ishak, M. Y., & Makmom, A. A. (2021) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-021-15890-3 · Cited by 87
Functional traits in agroecology: Advancing description and prediction in agroecosystems
Martin, A. R., & Isaac, M. E. (2017) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13039 · Cited by 71
Alhassan, H. (2021) · Scientific African · doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00740 · Cited by 70
Prechsl, U. E., Wittwer, R., van der Heijden, M. G. A., Lüscher, G., Jeanneret, P., & Nemecek, T. (2017) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.011 · Cited by 69
Koondhar, M. A., Li, H., Wang, H., Bold, S., & Kong, R. (2020) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-019-07501-z · Cited by 69
Spangenberg, J. H., Douguet, J.-M., Settele, J., & Heong, K. L. (2014) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.05.010 · Cited by 69
The challenge of feeding 9–10 billion people equitably and sustainably
Godfray, H. C. J. (2013) · The Journal of Agricultural Science · doi:10.1017/s0021859613000774 · Cited by 69
Carbon and nitrogen in soil and vine roots in harrowed and grass-covered vineyards
Agnelli, A., Bol, R., Trumbore, S. E., Dixon, E. R., Cocco, S., & Corti, G. (2014) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2014.04.023 · Cited by 73
Chen, G., Ren, T., Li, P., Wang, B., Zou, J., Hussain, S., Cong, R., Wu, L., Lü, J., & Li, X. (2018) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-018-3792-2 · Cited by 70
Tipping point dynamics in global land use
Taylor, C. A., & Rising, J. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac3c6d · Cited by 76
Status of land use intensity in China and its impacts on land carrying capacity
Yan, H., Liu, F., Liu, J., Xiao, X., & Qin, Y. (2017) · Journal of Geographical Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11442-017-1383-7 · Cited by 68
Guo, X., Zhao, D., Zhuang, M., Wang, C., & Zhang, F. S. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148527 · Cited by 70
Half of the greenhouse gas emissions from China’s food system occur during food production
Liu, G., Zhang, F., & Deng, X. (2023) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00809-2 · Cited by 68
Li, Q., Chen, W., Shi, H., & Zhang, S. (2024) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107489 · Cited by 66
Ying, H., Yin, Y., Zheng, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, Q., Xue, Y., Stefanovski, D., Cui, Z., & Dou, Z. (2019) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14798 · Cited by 67
The dry chain: reducing postharvest losses and improving food safety in humid climates
Bradford, K. J., Dahal, P., Asbrouck, J. V., Kunusoth, K., Bello, P., Thompson, J. F., & Wu, F. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-817121-9.00017-6 · Cited by 65
Evaluating Management Factor Contributions to Reduce Corn Yield Gaps
Ruffo, M. L., Gentry, L. F., Henninger, A. S., Seebauer, J. R., & Below, F. E. (2015) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj14.0355 · Cited by 65
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security
Farooq, M., Rehman, A., & Pisante, M. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23169-9_1 · Cited by 67
Guo, Y., Yin, W., Fan, H., Fan, Z., Hu, F., Yu, A., Zhao, C., Chai, Q., Aziiba, E. A., & Zhang, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.726568 · Cited by 64
Lamichhane, J. R., Alletto, L., Cong, W., Dayoub, E., Maury, P., Plaza‐Bonilla, D., Reckling, M., Saia, S., Soltani, E., Tison, G., et al. (2022) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108795 · Cited by 70
Contemporary changes of greenhouse gases emission from the agricultural sector in the EU-27
Mohammed, S., Alsafadi, K., Takács, I., & Harsányi, E. (2019) · Geology Ecology and Landscapes · doi:10.1080/24749508.2019.1694129 · Cited by 64
Evidence for increasing global wheat yield potential
Guarin, J. R., Martre, P., Ewert, F. A., Webber, H. A., Dueri, S., Calderini, D. F., Reynolds, M. P., Molero, G., Miralles, D. J., García, G. A., et al. (2022) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aca77c · Cited by 71
McGill, B. M., Hamilton, S. K., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2018) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.14472 · Cited by 63
Climate change and respiratory health: current evidence and knowledge gaps
Takaro, T. K., Knowlton, K., & Balmes, J. R. (2013) · Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1586/17476348.2013.814367 · Cited by 65
Gonzalez-Salazar, M. A., Venturini, M., Poganietz, W., Finkenrath, M., & Leal, M. R. L. V. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.082 · Cited by 63
Win, E. P., Win, K. K., Bellingrath‐Kimura, S. D., & Oo, A. Z. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253755 · Cited by 62
Challenges of Pasture Feeding Systems—Opportunities and Constraints
Wróbel, B., Zielewicz, W., & Staniak, M. (2023) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture13050974 · Cited by 76
Buller, L. S., Bergier, I., Ortega, E., de MORAES, A., Bayma-Silva, G., & Zanetti, M. R. (2014) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.11.004 · Cited by 72
Baldos, U. L. C., & Hertel, T. W. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034024 · Cited by 62
Establishing High-Yielding Maize System for Sustainable Intensification in China
Meng, Q., Cui, Z., Yang, H. S., Zhang, F. S., & Chen, X. (2017) · Advances in agronomy · doi:10.1016/bs.agron.2017.11.004 · Cited by 61
Lal, R. (2019) · Journal of Soil and Water Conservation · doi:10.2489/jswc.74.3.55a · Cited by 60
Productivity Growth in Global Agriculture Shifting to Developing Countries
Fuglie, K. O., & Wang, S. L. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.143193 · Cited by 61
Agricultural emissions reduction potential by improving technical efficiency in crop production
Khatri‐Chhetri, A., Sapkota, T. B., Maharjan, S., Konath, N. C., & Shirsath, P. (2023) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103620 · Cited by 68
Ghisellini, P., Setti, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2015) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9678-2 · Cited by 61
How do we feed grazing livestock in the future? A case for knowledge‐driven grazing systems
Horn, J., & Isselstein, J. (2022) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12577 · Cited by 66
Addressing food supply chain and consumption inefficiencies: potential for climate change mitigation
Porter, S. D., & Reay, D. (2015) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0783-4 · Cited by 69
Magliocca, N. R., Brown, D. G., & Ellis, E. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073241 · Cited by 63
Chen, H., Yu, C., Li, C., Xin, Q., Huang, X., Zhang, J., Yue, Y., Huang, G., Li, X., & Wang, W. (2015) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.11.023 · Cited by 60
Tang, J., Wang, J., Li, Z., Wang, S., & Qu, Y. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10020475 · Cited by 60
Soria-López, A., García-Pérez, P., Carpena, M., Garcia‐Oliveira, P., Otero, P., Fraga‐Corral, M., Cao, H., Prieto, M. A., & Simal‐Gándara, J. (2022) · Food Frontiers · doi:10.1002/fft2.173 · Cited by 64
Nitrous oxide mitigation in UK agriculture
Rees, R. M., Baddeley, J. A., Bhogal, A., Ball, B. C., Chadwick, D. R., MacLeod, M. J., Lilly, A., Pappa, V. A., Thorman, R. E., Watson, C. A., et al. (2013) · Soil Science & Plant Nutrition · doi:10.1080/00380768.2012.733869 · Cited by 59
Hidden emissions of forest transitions: a socio-ecological reading of forest change
Gingrich, S., Lauk, C., Niedertscheider, M., Pichler, M., Schaffartzik, A., Schmid, M. S., Magerl, A., Noë, J. L., Bhan, M., & Erb, K. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.005 · Cited by 61
Synergy between vertical farming and the hydrogen economy
Osman, A. I., Redpath, D., Lichtfouse, E. A., & Rooney, D. W. (2023) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-023-01648-5 · Cited by 59
Continuous No-Till Impacts on Soil Biophysical Carbon Sequestration
Sundermeier, A., Islam, K. R., Raut, Y., Reeder, R. C., & Dick, W. A. (2011) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2010.0334 · Cited by 60
Sustainable maize production and consumption in China: practices and politics in transition
Ely, A., Geall, S., & Song, Y. (2016) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.001 · Cited by 60
Walsh, M. J., Doren, L. G. V., Sills, D. L., Archibald, I., Beal, C. M., Lei, X. G., Huntley, M. E., Johnson, Z. I., & Greene, C. H. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114006 · Cited by 58
Mueller, N. D., Rhines, A. N., Butler, E. E., Ray, D. K., Siebert, S., Holbrook, N. M., & Huybers, P. (2017) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-17-0096.1 · Cited by 62
Developing farmer typologies to inform conservation outreach in agricultural landscapes
Upadhaya, S., Arbuckle, J. G., & Moore, L. A. S. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105157 · Cited by 57
Urban land use change and its effect on social metabolism: An empirical study in Shanghai
Cui, X., & Wang, X. (2015) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.018 · Cited by 57
Radiation use efficiency increased over a century of maize (Zea maysL.) breeding in the US corn belt
Messina, C. D., Rotundo, J. L., Hammer, G., Gho, C., Reyes, A., Fang, Y., van Oosterom, E. J., Borrás, L., & Cooper, M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erac212 · Cited by 58
Zhang, X., Zhou, Z., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Wang, J., Zhang, H., & Xiong, Z. (2016) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-13-2701-2016 · Cited by 56
Closing Greenhouse Gas Emission Gaps of Staple Crops in China
Liu, Y., Gu, W., Liu, B., Zhang, C., Wang, C., Yang, Y., & Zhuang, M. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c01978 · Cited by 54
Mapping and analysing cropland use intensity from a NPP perspective
Niedertscheider, M., Kästner, T., Fetzel, T., Haberl, H., Kroisleitner, C., Plutzar, C., & Erb, K. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014008 · Cited by 58
Yao, Z., Zhang, D., Yao, P., Zhao, N., Liu, N., Zhai, B., Zhang, S., Li, Y., Huang, D., Cao, W., et al. (2017) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.028 · Cited by 55
Kalkhoran, S. S., Pannell, D. J., Thamo, T., White, B., & Polyakov, M. (2019) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102684 · Cited by 55
Attaining food and environmental security in an era of globalization
Hertel, T. W., & Baldos, U. L. C. (2016) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.006 · Cited by 57
Wu, H., Wang, B., Lu, M., Irfan, M. F., Miao, X., Luo, S., & Hao, Y. (2023) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106916 · Cited by 55
Agricultural Trade and Environmental Sustainability
Baylis, K., Heckelei, T., & Hertel, T. W. (2021) · Annual Review of Resource Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-090453 · Cited by 65
Declining Agricultural Productivity and Global Food Security
Dar, W. D., & Gowda, C. L. L. (2013) · Journal of Crop Improvement · doi:10.1080/15427528.2011.653097 · Cited by 53
China’s Land-Use Changes during the Past 300 Years: A Historical Perspective
Miao, L., Zhu, F., Sun, Z., Moore, J. C., & Cui, X. (2016) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph13090847 · Cited by 53
Zhuang, M., Gongbuzeren, & Li, W. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.126 · Cited by 53
Genetic Engineering for Global Food Security: Photosynthesis and Biofortification
Simkin, A. J. (2019) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants8120586 · Cited by 55
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Yadav, S. S., Hegde, V. S., Habibi, A. B., Dia, M., & Verma, S. (2018) · doi:10.1002/9781119180661.ch1 · Cited by 53
Significant Reductions in Crop Yields From Air Pollution and Heat Stress in the United States
Liu, X., & Desai, A. R. (2021) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef002000 · Cited by 52
Economics of Climate Smart Agriculture: An Overview
McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., & Zilberman, D. (2017) · Natural resource management and policy · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61194-5_3 · Cited by 53
Hao, P., Qiu, C., Ding, G., Vincze, É., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., & Wu, F. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123885 · Cited by 52
Ecological Intensification for Sustainable Development
Raj, A., Jhariya, M. K., Khan, N. A., Banerjee, A., & Meena, R. S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_5 · Cited by 52
Recent Genetic Gains in Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Oilseed Rape
Stahl, A., Pfeifer, M., Frisch, M., Wittkop, B., & Snowdon, R. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.00963 · Cited by 56
Carbon footprint of fertilizer technologies
Chojnacka, K., Kowalski, Z., Kulczycka, J., Dmytryk, A., Górecki, H., Ligas, B., & Gramza, M. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.108 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J., & Lobell, D. B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2010-06-15
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 12052-12057
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC2900707
- OpenAlex
- W2149362589
- Semantic Scholar
- 977c80cae562c86e67f1733bd4a17afe8e827061
- Cited by
- 1,128
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 80
- FWCI
- 65.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX08AV25G)
- Carnegie Institution of Washington
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- greenhouse gas emissions reduction, agricultural intensification, agricultural emissions, crop yield improvement, fertilizer emissions, CO2 emissions, agricultural research investment, land use change, energy crops
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
