{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027428571428571427, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019428571428571427, 'mean_word_length': 4.918918918918919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on 'improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated CO(2) concentration on crop productivity' by X. Yin.

SCOPE
The 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.