Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Under the Canadian model scenario, climate change reduced grain yield by 30 to 40% in Kansas and Oklahoma rainfed areas with less precipitation.

A claim from Effects of climate change on US crop production: simulation results using two different GCM scenarios. Part I: Wheat, potato, maize, and citrus · 2002

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)projected

Claim · model-written summary

Under the Canadian model scenario, climate change reduced grain yield by 30 to 40% in Kansas and Oklahoma rainfed areas with less precipitation.

Taxon
Wheat, potato, maize, and citrusCitrusSolanum tuberosumTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
Treatment
climate changee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reductionse0
Value
-30 to -40%e0
Setting
Kansas and Oklahoma Bread Basket regionse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Citrus
Citrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ellen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in some important rainfed production areas where precipitation was projected to decrease, such as the Kansas and Oklahoma Bread Basket regions under the Canadian Centre Climate Model scenario, climate change resulted in significant reductions of grain yield (-30 to -40%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–947
t0

“Wheat, potato, maize, and citrus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–143

Title

Effects of climate change on US crop production: simulation results using two different GCM scenarios. Part I: Wheat, potato, maize, and citrus

FN Tubiello; C Rosenzweig; RA Goldberg; et al. Climate Research 2002. doi:10.3354/cr020259

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-d816bf3ce1fb5eb282c360918f6cd30e0b1a5820f50108908e40b132128eff52 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

climate site · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 16 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this claim · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Future potato yields are expected to increase in most cases with adaptation through changing planting windows and crop varieties.

    Global Potato Yields Increase Under Climate Change With Adaptation and CO2 Fertilisation · 2020

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  2. positive
    Tuber yield trended 4% greater under site-specific irrigation in both years without a significant difference.

    COMPARISON OF SITE-SPECIFIC AND CONVENTIONAL UNIFORM IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT FOR POTATOES · 2006 · compared with CUIM

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Alternating different insecticides through the growing season gave commercially acceptable potato tuber yield.

    Timing of Insecticides for Control of Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Eastern Virginia Based on Differential Susceptibility of Life Stages · 1986

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Planting near the end of the rainy season gave the best potato yields.

    The Effects of Shifting Planting Dates and Mulching on Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans) and Drought Stress of Potato Crops Grown under Tropical Highland Conditions · 1987

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Total tuber yield under site-specific irrigation management was significantly greater by approximately 4% than under conventional uniform management.

    DISTRIBUTED CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM FOR CLOSED-LOOP SITE-SPECIFIC IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT WITH CENTER PIVOTS · 2005 · compared with conventional uniform

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Site-specific fumigation saved production cost of $209/ha in potato.

    Site-Specific Management of Meloidogyne chitwoodi in Idaho Potatoes Using 1,3-Dichloropropene; Approach, Experiences, and Economics. · 2013

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    The agroforestry site had significantly greater yields than the open site.

    Soil Nutrient Supply in Cultivated Bush Bean–Potato Intercropping Grown in Subarctic Soil Managed with Agroforestry · 2021 · compared with open site

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Twice-per-season foliar Silk treatment increased potato yield by 3.31–4.05 t/ha.

    MANAGEMENT OF POTATO PRODUCTIVITY WITH THE USE OF GROWTH REGULATORS IN THE FOREST-STEPPE AREA OF THE MIDDLE VOLGA · 2015

    Opposite direction

16 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

154 papers: 72 positive, 82 negative or no effect

81 papers in the same direction as this claim · 72 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Drastic climate mitigation as in RCP 2.6 could avoid more than 80% of the global average yield losses expected under RCP 8.5 by the 2080s.

    Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures · 2014 · compared with otherwise expected by the 2080s under RCP 8.5

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    CSA scenarios raised wheat grain yield by approximately 10%.

    Temporal changes in soil microbial properties and nutrient dynamics under climate smart agriculture practices · 2020 · compared with CT based scenario

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Transient climate change scenarios without changes in climatic variability usually increased wheat yield at Rothamsted.

    Comparison of wheat simulation models under climate change. II. Application of climate change scenarios · 1996

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Four irrigations with 75 kg N per feddan gave Misr-1 the highest yield and yield components.

    Response of some wheat varieties to irrigation and nitrogen fertilization using ammonia gas in North Nile Delta region · 2015

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Irrigation significantly increased grain yield in five of seven trials.

    RESPONSE OF WINTER WHEAT TO N AND WATER: GROWTH, WATER USE, YIELD AND GRAIN PROTEIN · 1989

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    The same location-specific N rates gave favorable cost-benefit ratios.

    Narrowing crop yield gaps in Ethiopia under current and future climate: A model-based exploration of intensification options and their trade-offs with the water balance · 2022

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Grain yield and other traits were significantly higher in the normal season than in the late season.

    Germplasm evaluation of heat tolerance in bread wheat in Tel Hadya, Syria · 2016 · compared with late season

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Site-specific nutrient management significantly improved wheat grain yield.

    Enhancing Productivity of Rice-Wheat System Through Integrated Crop Management in the Eastern-Gangetic Plains of South Asia · 2006

    Opposite direction

145 papers more in this group

See all 154 papers →

climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

180 papers: 102 positive, 78 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this claim · 102 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Climate change simulated a 10.7–18.2% decrease in maize productivity under A2.

    Evaluation of climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for maize cultivation in the Himalayan foothills of India · 2015 · compared with baseline yield

    Same directionCites this paper

  2. negative
    Late-term climate scenarios are projected to reduce maize yield by 36% to 50% relative to the baseline.

    Root proliferation adaptation strategy improved maize productivity in the US Great Plains: Insights from crop simulation model under future climate change · 2024 · compared with baseline climate conditions (1985–2014)

    Same directionCites this paper

  3. negative
    Climate change may reduce maize grain yield by 11% to 38% relative to the baseline common planting date.

    Effect of Climate Change on Maize Production and Shifting of Planting Date as Adaptation Strategy in Mashhad · 2013 · compared with baseline

    Same directionCites this paper

  4. positive
    Drastic climate mitigation as in RCP 2.6 could avoid more than 80% of the global average yield losses expected under RCP 8.5 by the 2080s.

    Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures · 2014 · compared with otherwise expected by the 2080s under RCP 8.5

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Maize grain yields were significantly higher, by 2.7 times, in push-pull plots than monocrop plots.

    A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East Africa · 2017 · compared with maize monocrop

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Longer season cultivars increased yield by 13% to 38%.

    Negative effects of climate warming on maize yield are reversed by the changing of sowing date and cultivar selection in Northeast China · 2013

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Hotter and drier scenarios reduced average simulated maize yield by 21% at 1 °C warming.

    Potential benefits of drought and heat tolerance for adapting maize to climate change in tropical environments · 2017 · compared with hotter only climate change scenarios

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Top ten DH maize testcross hybrids yielded 16% more than the best commercial check across four optimum locations.

    International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science · 2014 · compared with best commercial check

    Opposite direction

171 papers more in this group

See all 180 papers →

3 of 4 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.