Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23788745›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2013

Comment on 'improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated CO(2) concentration on crop productivity' by X. Yin.

B A Kimball

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

B A KimballU.S. Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 21881 North Cardon Lane, Maricopa, AZ 85138, USA. bruce.kimball@ars.usda.gov

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

scopeThe recent publication by Yin (2013; Annals of Botany 112: 465-475) referred to in the title above provides an excellent review of modelling approaches to predict the impact of elevated CO2 on crop productivity, as well as on the controversy regarding whether yield responses observed in free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments are indeed lower than those from chamber-based experiments. However, the wheat experiments in the example of fig. 1 in Yin's paper had a flaw as the control plots lacked blowers that were in the FACE plots, which warmed the FACE plots at night and hastened plant development. This Viewpoint seeks to highlight this fact, and to comment on the relative merits of FACE and enclosure experiments.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalCarbonCarbon DioxideCrops, AgriculturalCarbonCarbon Dioxideclimate changecrop modelselevated CO2FACEfree-air CO2 enrichmentglobal changewheat

Identifiers

PMID23788745
PMCPMC3718218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.