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 801–900 of 1,000
Effect of Conservation Agriculture on Energy Consumption and Carbon Emission
Mishra, A. K., Roohi, R., Sheoran, H. S., Mishra, S., Pandey, A., Sah, D., Bhat, M. A., & Sharma, S. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-93262-6_6 · Cited by 4
Landscape Effects on Ecosystem Structure and Function
With, K. A. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838388.003.0011 · Cited by 4
Fan, H., Yin, W., Zhao, C., Yu, A., Fan, Z., Hu, F., Zhang, J., & Chai, Q. (2022) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy12122994 · Cited by 6
Moise, M. L. (2023) · Carbon Research · doi:10.1007/s44246-023-00076-y · Cited by 4
Mwaura, F. M., Ngigi, M. W., & Obare, G. A. (2024) · Scientific African · doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02206 · Cited by 4
Teo, V. X., Dhandapani, S., Jie, R. A., Philip, V. S., Teng, M. T. J., Zhang, S., Park, B. S., Olivo, M., & Dinish, U. S. (2024) · Frontiers in Photonics · doi:10.3389/fphot.2024.1418246 · Cited by 4
Enhancing Nutrient Recycling Through Regenerative Practices Under Different Agroecosystems
Kaur, T., HIMSHIKHA, H., Singh, A., Brar, S. K., Kaur, S., & Kaur, J. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-6691-8_9 · Cited by 4
Climate change and drought: challenges for agriculture in arid environments
Shawaqfeh, S. S., Tawaha, A. R. M. A., Günal, H., Al‐Tawaha, A. R., Qotb, M. A., Karnwal, A., Nesterova, N., Singh, A., Rajput, V. D., Ghazaryan, K., et al. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-23956-4.00001-6 · Cited by 4
Yao, Z., Hu, H., Wang, T., Wang, X., Li, Y., Sun, X., Adl, S. M., Yan, F., Zhang, Y. J., & Zhu, B. (2024) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2024.109441 · Cited by 4
Effect of Nitrophos Fertilizer on Pollinator Dynamics and Onion Seed Yield
Bukhari, S. F., Ali, M., Khan, F. Z. A., & Mozūratis, R. (2025) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology14020119 · Cited by 4
Reyes-Escobar, J., Zagal, E., V, Sandoval, M., Navia, R., & Muñoz, C. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su71013585 · Cited by 4
Optimal Conversion of Forest Land to Agriculture: Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire
Djezou, W. B. (2013) · Journal of Agricultural Studies · doi:10.5296/jas.v1i2.3938 · Cited by 4
Sustainable Urban Agro Ecology and Its Implications With Food Systems
Vargas-Hernández, J. G. (2020) · Advances in environmental engineering and green technologies book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-4915-5.ch008 · Cited by 4
Governance and Institutional Arrangements for Sustainable Management of Miombo Woodlands
Zulu, L. C., Kamoto, J. F. M., Djenontin, I. N. S., Mbanze, A. A., Kambanje, C., & Katerere, Y. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50104-4_5 · Cited by 4
The evolution of cereal yields in Italy over the last 150 years: The peculiar case of rice
Mariani, L., Ferrero, A., & Cola, G. (2021) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.1002/agj2.20710 · Cited by 4
Internalizing CO2-Equivalent Emissions Issued From Agricultural Activities
Dragicevic, A. Z. (2021) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.714334 · Cited by 4
Страпчук, С. І., & Mykolenko, O. (2022) · Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University Series “Economics” · doi:10.52566/msu-econ.9(2).2022.9-17 · Cited by 4
Low-carbon agricultural development in China a promising cure for global warming
Huang, K., & Xiao, M. (2023) · Thermal Science · doi:10.2298/tsci2303173h · Cited by 4
New green revolution in Ghana: perceived benefits, challenges, and implications for the environment
Kpienbaareh, D., & Ahmed, A. (2023) · Global Public Policy and Governance · doi:10.1007/s43508-023-00070-5 · Cited by 4
Setting-aside cropland did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a drained peat soil in Sweden
Keck, H., Meurer, K. H. E., Jordan, S., Kätterer, T., Hadden, D., & Grelle, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Environmental Science · doi:10.3389/fenvs.2024.1386134 · Cited by 4
Indirect Estimation of Yield-Price Elasticities
Scott, P. T. (2013) · Cited by 4
Recent Nutritional Advances to Mitigate Methane Emission in Cattle: A Review
Hadipour, A., Mohit, A., Kuhi, H. D., & Hashemzadeh, F. (2021) · Iranian journal of applied animal science · Cited by 4
Effects of organic amendment on soil quality as assessed by biological indicators
Sultana, S. (2011) · Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II · doi:10.6092/unina/fedoa/8860 · Cited by 4
Ahmed, K. F., Wang, G., You, L., Anyah, R., Zhang, C., & Burnicki, A. C. (2017) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2016ms000721 · Cited by 4
Increasing Crop, Livestock, and Fishery Productivity Through ICT
Pehu, E., Belden, C., Majumdar, S., & Jantunen, T. (2017) · World Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1002-2_module5 · Cited by 4
Assessing Synergies and Trade-Offs from Nitrogen Use in Africa
Hickman, J. E., Zingore, S., Galy‐Lacaux, C., Kihara, J., Bekunda, M. A., & Palm, C. A. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58065-0_5 · Cited by 4
Sustainability of Agriculture: Energy Use and Climate Change Mitigation Issues
Štreimikienė, D. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76802-7_2 · Cited by 4
Drulis, P., Kriaučiūnienė, Z., & Liakas, V. (2022) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy12102264 · Cited by 4
Interventions for achieving sustainability in tropical forest and agricultural landscapesPreprint
Newton, P., Agrawal, A., & Wollenberg, L. (2013) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.2499/capriwp110 · Cited by 4
Sustainable Agriculture: Implication for SDG2 (Zero Hunger)
Allahyari, M. S., & Poursaeed, A. (2020) · Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95675-6_50 · Cited by 4
Topcu, E., & BAŞER, U. (2025) · Applied Fruit Science · doi:10.1007/s10341-025-01440-5 · Cited by 3
Pursuing zero net greenhouse gas emission in crop production in China
Wang, M., Wang, Z., Yang, Y., Ying, H., Wang, H., Oenema, O., Bai, Z., Xue, Y., Wang, Y., Tian, X., et al. (2025) · Cell Reports Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100459 · Cited by 3
Dinçer, S., & Akın, F. (2025) · Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi · doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1661043 · Cited by 5
Chen, J., Zhang, J., Fu, S., Liang, S., & Wang, K. (2025) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110805 · Cited by 3
Feng, R., Fan, K.-W., & Qi, Z. (2025) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos16111245 · Cited by 4
Özbek, O., Gökdoğan, O., Çelik, Ş. A., Gökdüman, M. E., & Bilmez, S. (2026) · Applied Fruit Science · doi:10.1007/s10341-026-01792-6 · Cited by 3
Heterotrophic respiration by soil microbes in a changing climate
Jansson, J. K., Flamholz, A. I., Peixoto, R. S., Salles, J. F., Lennon, J. T., Rosado, A. S., Sanders, I. R., Jacobsen, C. S., Makhalanyane, T. P., Schadt, C. W., et al. (2026) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-026-00806-x · Cited by 4
Interplays Between Methane Emission and Agricultural Output
Das, R. C., & Mukherjee, A. (2020) · International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development · doi:10.4018/ijsesd.2020100105 · Cited by 3
Climate Change and Agricultural Sustainable Intensification in the Arid Lands
Haj-Amor, Z., Dhaouadi, L., Al-Omran, A. M., & Bouri, S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-33-4203-3_4 · Cited by 3
Anwar, F., Sanaullah, M., Ali, H. M., Hussain, S., Mahmood, F., Zahid, Z., & Shahzad, T. (2024) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.17984 · Cited by 4
Luo, C. C., & Xu, K. (2025) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-01-2025-0066 · Cited by 3
Oregon's Fish and Wildlife in a Changing Climate
Hixon, M. A., Gregory, S. V., Robinson, W. D., Baker, C. S., Batchelder, H. P., Epps, C. W., Garcia, T. S., Haig, S. M., Letelier, R. M., Lytle, D. A., et al. (2010) · PDXScholar (Portland State University) · Cited by 3
Systemic Feedbacks in Global Land Use
Haberl, H., Erb, K., Kästner, T., Lauk, C., & Mayer, A. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7_14 · Cited by 3
Talwar, H. S., Subbarao, G. V., Swarna, R., Deshpande, S., Ganapathy, K. N., & Tonapi, V. A. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8249-3_9 · Cited by 3
Demand drivers and changes in food-related emissions in the UK: A decomposition approach
Biondi, B., Castiglione, C., & Mazzocchi, M. (2021) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107114 · Cited by 3
The Relevance of Plant Breeding to Food Security in Africa
Abu, N. E., Ugwu, E. U., & Ojuederie, O. B. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50672-8_26 · Cited by 3
IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY: A REVIEW
Kakani, G. (2022) · PLANT ARCHIVES · doi:10.51470/plantarchives.2022.v22.no2.051 · Cited by 3
Song, X., & Dou, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2024.1345230 · Cited by 3
Lucas, K. R. G., & Kebreab, E. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171882 · Cited by 3
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering Technologies in Reference to Biofortified Crops
Maurya, B., Mishra, V., Divyanshu, K., & Nishad, J. H. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3438-2_18 · Cited by 3
Yang, X., Shao-fu, W., Wu, L., Chen, J., & Zhu, Y. (2017) · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · doi:10.1080/00103624.2016.1253715 · Cited by 3
Food Safety Issues and Challenges of GM Crops
Ahmad, N., Raza, G., Waheed, T., & Mukhtar, Z. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820780-2.00016-9 · Cited by 3
Guillou, M., & Matheron, G. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8569-3_6 · Cited by 3
Montross, M. D., Bolt, S. D., & Adams, W. C. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12064 · Cited by 3
Conference on 'Future food and health' Symposium I: Sustainability and food security
Garnett, T. (2013) · Cited by 3
Faraco, R. Á., da Silva, C. G., de Amorim, W. S., Silveira, A., Neiva, S. D. S., & Baltazar, J. (2016) · Scholedge International Journal of Multidisciplinary & Allied Studies · doi:10.19085/journal.sijmas030203 · Cited by 3
Impacts of Climate Change on Insect Pests of Main Crops in Egypt
El‐Sayed, A. A., Nada, M. A., & El-Fattah, S. M. A. (2018) · The handbook of environmental chemistry · doi:10.1007/698_2018_311 · Cited by 3
Genetically Modified Crops and Climate Change Adaptation
Singh, S., Agrawal, M., & Agrawal, S. B. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820780-2.00010-8 · Cited by 3
Nahar, S., Hasan, M. F., Sikdar, B., & Islam, M. A. (2021) · Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s12892-021-00099-0 · Cited by 3
Achieving Sustainable Agriculture: Overview of Current and Future Agronomic Best Practices
Sripada, R. P., Das, P. K., Oyarzabal, E. S., Grapes, L., Griffith, D., Luchte, J., & Songstad, D. D. (2014) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55262-5_8 · Cited by 3
Scaling Issues in Landscape Ecology
With, K. A. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838388.003.0002 · Cited by 3
de Figueiredo, E. B. (2012) · Aleph UCLA Undergraduate Research Journal for the Humanities and Social Sciences · Cited by 3
The agroecosystem role in climate change mitigation and adaptation
Campbell, E. T. (2011) · Carbon Management · doi:10.4155/cmt.11.51 · Cited by 3
Should REDD+ fund ‘sustainable intensification’ as a means of reducing tropical deforestation?
Matthews, R., & Pinto, A. D. (2012) · Carbon Management · doi:10.4155/cmt.12.6 · Cited by 3
Visualizing genetic transmission patterns in plant pedigrees.
Shaw, P. D. (2026) · Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) · doi:10.17869/enu.463271 · Cited by 3
Environmental Reporting in a Post Truth World
Blackall, D. (2017) · Asia Pacific Media Educator · doi:10.1177/1326365x17703205 · Cited by 3
Deforestation and agriculture in the tropics: carbon emissions and options for mitigation
Carter, S. (2018) · doi:10.18174/428320 · Cited by 3
Impact of Winter Soil Processes on Nutrient Leaching in Cold Region Agroecosystems
Krogstad, K., Jensen, G., Gharasoo, M., Hug, L. A., Rudolph, D. L., Cappellen, P. V., & Rezanezhad, F. (2021) · EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-13853 · Cited by 3
What is sustainable intensification?
Fraanje, W., & Lee-Gammage, S. (2018) · University of Oxford · doi:10.56661/075f639f · Cited by 3
Geofuels: energy and the Earth
(2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.193889 · Cited by 3
Nasim, N., & Nasim, M. (2023) · PLOS Climate · doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000091 · Cited by 2
The Role of Certificates and Labels for Cocoa in the Face of Climate Change: A Scientific Review
Opoku, C. H. (2024) · American Journal of Climate Change · doi:10.4236/ajcc.2024.132015 · Cited by 2
Decoupling effects and impact mechanisms of carbon emissions in China's plantation system
Liu, B., Yang, J., Qi, S., & Shi, R. (2025) · International Review of Economics & Finance · doi:10.1016/j.iref.2025.104340 · Cited by 2
Nanotechnology and artificial intelligence to enable sustainable and precision agriculture
Feroz, F., Mehraj, M., Kumar, S., Wani, A. W., Saini, N., & Chaudhuri, M. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-23688-4.00006-3 · Cited by 2
Eliminating hunger in a world serious about climate mitigation
Burney, J. A. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2410202122 · Cited by 2
Self-citationPadonou, M. J. D. D. D., Denis, A., Hountondji, Y.-C. H., Tychon, B., & Gouwakinnou, G. N. (2025) · Environments · doi:10.3390/environments12080271 · Cited by 2
Gao, Y., Liu, D. L., Wang, B., Chen, S., Hu, K., & Feng, P. (2025) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104470 · Cited by 3
Han, X., Xu, C., Chen, Y., Farooq, M., Siddique, K. H. M., Dang, P., Zhang, M., Liao, L., Zhang, L., Wang, S., et al. (2026) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture16050532 · Cited by 2
Pata, U. K., ALTINER, A., Bozkurt, E., & Toktaş, Y. (2026) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.71015 · Cited by 2
The Effects of Agricultural Machinery Services on Agricultural Carbon Emissions: Evidence from China
Cai, J., Wei, Z., & Zhao, Y. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18136390 · Cited by 2
Sustainable Agriculture: Implication for SDG2 (Zero Hunger)
Allahyari, M. S., & Poursaeed, A. (2019) · Historiographies of science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_50-1 · Cited by 2
Economic Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture: Case of Africa
Fauzel, S. B. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22759-3_34-1 · Cited by 2
Mauludiyah, & Safitri, N. M. (2022) · Journal of Marine Resources and Coastal Management · doi:10.29080/mrcm.v3i01.1425 · Cited by 2
Landscape Effects on Population Distributions and Dynamics
With, K. A. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198838388.003.0007 · Cited by 1
Food Production and Ecosystem Protection
Ferranti, P. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823960-5.00039-1 · Cited by 2
Li, S., Shi, J., Li, H., Wang, Y., & Agathokleous, E. (2023) · Paddy and Water Environment · doi:10.1007/s10333-023-00939-5 · Cited by 2
Poly-γ-glutamic acid affects NH3 volatilization, soil nitrogen content, and soybean seedling growth
Liu, L., & Shi, W. (2023) · Water Science & Technology Water Supply · doi:10.2166/ws.2023.228 · Cited by 2
Miao, Q., Sun, Y., Ma, W., Wang, G., Wu, L. H., Chen, X., Tian, X., Yin, Y., Zhang, Q., & Cui, Z. (2023) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy13112676 · Cited by 2
Plants Functional Traits and Photosynthetic Efficiency for Enhancing Crop Yield
Prachi, K., Kanta, C., Chandra, S., & Sharma, I. P. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-1510-7_7 · Cited by 2
Evidence on the sustainable management of native agrobiodiversity in traditional Mexican markets
Vázquez-Martin, Á. E., Aguilar–Rivera, N., Díaz‐José, J., Torres-Cantú, G. B., Andrés–Meza, P., & Ávalos, D. A. (2024) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-024-05052-z · Cited by 2
Potentials of Plant Probiotic Bacteria for Improving Growth and Health of Crop Plants
Tabassum, T., Shahriar, S., Araf, Y., Ullah, M. A., & Islam, T. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-3473-3_12 · Cited by 2
Tian, J., Xing, Z., Bao-Wei, G. U. O., Hu, Y., Wei, H., Gao, H., Zhang, H., Li, M., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Food and Energy Security · doi:10.1002/fes3.70018 · Cited by 2
Jauhar, S. (2024) · Journal of Natural Science Review · doi:10.62810/jnsr.v2ispecial.issue.163 · Cited by 2
From Historical Management to Modern Sustainability
Akıner, M. E., Akıner, N., & Akıner, İ. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0619-3.ch009 · Cited by 2
Arinaitwe, U., Thomason, W. E., Frame, W. H., Langston, D. B., & Reiter, M. S. (2025) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy15051059 · Cited by 2
Common bean response to cover crop straw and topdressing nitrogen fertilization
Pedrinho, A., Mariano, E., Merloti, L. F., Danielson, R. E., & de Sá, M. E. (2018) · Australian Journal of Crop Science · doi:10.21475/ajcs.18.12.07.pne1062 · Cited by 2
NITROGEN CYCLING IN INDONESIAN AGRICULTURE AROUND 1968 TO 2008 AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Bantacut, T., Pradifta, J., & PT Bank Mandiri (Persero), T. V. I. R. C. –. S. J. Y. S. N. 1. (2018) · Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan (Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management) · doi:10.29244/jpsl.8.3.308-318 · Cited by 2
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
