ArticleNature food2026
Including ozone increases estimated global crop and economic benefits of carbon neutrality policies.
Article in Nature food, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Counting ozone reveals larger gains of decarbonization.Nature food · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Climate change and ozone change are two major channels through which climate policies influence agricultural production, yet most studies assess climate or ozone in isolation, which can limit the accuracy of estimated climate policy effects. Here we use an integrated model to quantify how carbon neutrality policies pledged by 153 countries affect yields of maize, rice, soybean and wheat and the associated economic outcomes. We show that excluding ozone change may understate the benefits of existing carbon neutrality policies for the four main crops, by up to 38.7%. By including the combined effect of ozone and climate, carbon neutrality policies can prevent 0.5-41.5% in losses, and more than 70% of the crop area would experience crop gains compared with the no policy scenario. For countries that still experience agricultural losses, we discuss options to reduce food security risks in terms of mitigation policies, adaptation measures and agricultural trade agreements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42162357What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.