Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26527344›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016

Farm and product carbon footprints of China's fruit production--life cycle inventory of representative orchards of five major fruits.

Ming Yan, Kun Cheng, Qian Yue, Yu Yan, Robert M Rees, Genxing Pan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Application of bacterioruberin fromFood chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ming YanInstitute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture and Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, 1 Weigang, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Kun ChengInstitute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture and Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, 1 Weigang, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Qian YueInstitute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture and Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, 1 Weigang, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Yu YanInstitute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture and Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, 1 Weigang, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Robert M ReesCarbon Management Center, Scotish Rural College, King's Building, West Main Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK.
Genxing PanInstitute of Resource, Ecosystem and Environment of Agriculture and Center of Agriculture and Climate Change, Nanjing Agricultural University, 1 Weigang, Nanjing, 210095, China. pangenxing@aliyun.com.
Nanjing Agricultural University · CNScotland's Rural College · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the environmental impacts of fruit production will provide fundamental information for policy making of fruit consumption and marketing. This study aims to characterize the carbon footprints of China's fruit production and to figure out the key greenhouse gas emissions to cut with improved orchard management. Yearly input data of materials and energy in a full life cycle from material production to fruit harvest were obtained via field visits to orchards of five typical fruit types from selected areas of China. Carbon footprint (CF) was assessed with quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the individual inputs. Farm and product CFs were respectively predicted in terms of land use and of fresh fruit yield. Additionally, product CFs scaled by fruit nutrition value (vitamin C (Vc) content) and by the economic benefit from fruit production were also evaluated. The estimated farm CF ranged from 2.9 to 12.8 t CO2-eq ha(-1) across the surveyed orchards, whereas the product CF ranged from 0.07 to 0.7 kg CO2-eq kg(-1) fruit. While the mean product CFs of orange and pear were significantly lower than those of apple, banana, and peach, the nutrition-scaled CF of orange (0.5 kg CO2-eq g(-1) Vc on average) was significantly lower than others (3.0-5.9 kg CO2-eq g(-1) Vc). The income-scaled CF of orange and pear (1.20 and 1.01 kg CO2-eq USD(-1), respectively) was higher than apple, banana, and peach (0.87~0.39 kg CO2-eq USD(-1)). Among the inputs, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer contributed by over 50 % to the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, varying among the fruit types. There were some tradeoffs in product CFs between fruit nutrition value and fruit growers' income. Low carbon production and consumption policy and marketing mechanism should be developed to cut down carbon emissions from fruit production sector, with balancing the nutrition value, producer's income, and climate change mitigation.

Indexed as

AgricultureCarbon FootprintAnimalsChinaFertilizersFruitLife Cycle StagesNitrogenFertilizersNitrogenCarbon footprintFruit productionGreenhouse gas emissionsLife cycle assessmentLow carbon managementN fertilizerOrchard

Identifiers

PMID26527344
OpenAlexW1928465408

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.