Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 597

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world?

Licker, Rachel, Johnston, Matt, Foley, Jonathan A., Barford, Carol, Kucharik, Christopher J., Monfreda, Chad, Ramankutty, Navin·2010·Global Ecology and Biogeography

Abstract

Aim As the demands for food, feed and fuel increase in coming decades, society will be pressed to increase agricultural production – whether by increasing yields on already cultivated lands or by cultivating currently natural areas – or to change current crop consumption patterns. In this analysis, we consider where yields might be increased on existing croplands, and how crop yields are constrained by biophysical (e.g. climate) versus management factors. Location This study was conducted at the global scale. Methods Using spatial datasets, we compare yield patterns for the 18 most dominant crops within regions of similar climate. We use this comparison to evaluate the potential yield obtainable for each crop in different climates around the world. We then compare the actual yields currently being achieved for each crop with their ‘climatic potential yield’ to estimate the ‘yield gap’. Results We present spatial datasets of both the climatic potential yields and yield gap patterns for 18 crops around the year 2000. These datasets depict the regions of the world that meet their climatic potential, and highlight places where yields might potentially be raised. Most often, low yield gaps are concentrated in developed countries or in regions with relatively high‐input agriculture. Main conclusions While biophysical factors like climate are key drivers of global crop yield patterns, controlling for them demonstrates that there are still considerable ranges in yields attributable to other factors, like land management practices. With conventional practices, bringing crop yields up to their climatic potential would probably require more chemical, nutrient and water inputs. These intensive land management practices can adversely affect ecosystem goods and services, and in turn human welfare. Until society develops more sustainable high‐yielding cropping practices, the trade‐offs between increased crop productivity and social and ecological factors need to be made explicit when future food scenarios are formulated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00563.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 597

Metadata

Authors
Licker, R., Johnston, M., Foley, J. A., Barford, C., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., & Ramankutty, N.
Venue
Global Ecology and Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-17
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
769-782
ISSN
  • 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-8238
OpenAlex
W2146833082
Cited by
597
References
6
FWCI
31.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00563.x
The paper
Licker, R., Johnston, M., Foley, J. A., Barford, C., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world? Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00563.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.