The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting the impact of changing CO2 on crop yields: some thoughts on food
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Recent breakthroughs in CO 2 fumigation methods using free‐air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) technology have prompted comparisons between FACE experiments and ‘enclosure studies’ with respect to quantification of the effects of projected atmospheric CO 2 concentrations on crop yields. On the basis of one such comparison, it was argued that model projections of future food supply (some of which are based on older enclosure data) may have significantly overestimated the positive effect of elevated CO 2 concentration on crop yields and, by extension, food security. However, in the comparison, no effort was made to differentiate ‘enclosure study’ methodologies with respect to maintaining projected CO 2 concentration or to consider other climatic changes (e.g. warming) that could impact crop yields. In this review, we demonstrate that relative yield stimulations in response to future CO 2 concentrations obtained using a number of enclosure methodologies are quantitatively consistent with FACE results for three crops of global importance: rice (Oryza sativa), soybean (Glycine max) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). We suggest, that instead of focusing on methodological disparities per se, improved projections of future food supply could be achieved by better characterization of the biotic/abiotic uncertainties associated with projected changes in CO 2 and climate and incorporation of these uncertainties into current crop models. Contents Summary 607 I. Rising CO 2 and agricultural crop yields 608 II. Expanding methodologies 608 III. Which methodology gives the ‘truest’ prediction of future yields? 608 IV. Comparing responses among methodologies 610 V. Methodology vs future uncertainty 611 VI. Abiotic uncertainties 612 VII. Biotic uncertainties 613 VIII. Uncertainty vs methodology 614 IX. Modelers and experimentalists 614 X. Final thoughts 615 Acknowledgements 615 References 615
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years
Pearson, P. N., & Palmer, M. R. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35021000 · Cited by 1,771
Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
Keeling, C. D., Bacastow, R. B., Bainbridge, A. E., Ekdahl, C. A., Guenther, P. R., Waterman, L. S., & Chin, J. F. S. (1976) · Tellus · doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976.tb00701.x · Cited by 794
Cited by
Metabolomics for Plant Improvement: Status and Prospects
Kumar, R., Bohra, A., Pandey, A. K., Pandey, M. K., & Kumar, A. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01302 · Cited by 328
Soares, J. C., Santos, C. S., Carvalho, S. M. P., Pintado, M. M., & Vasconcelos, M. W. (2019) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-019-04229-0 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Ziska, L. H., & Bunce, J. A.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08-06
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 607-618
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2077156488
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting the impact of changing CO2 on crop yields: some thoughts on food. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02180.x
- The paper
- Ziska, L. H., & Bunce, J. A. (2007). Predicting the impact of changing CO2 on crop yields: some thoughts on food. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02180.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.