The authors are not doing a particularly good job of framing the losses or the benefits with their wording in the article. They link to a source that indicates

The authors are not doing a particularly good job of framing the losses or the benefits with their wording in the article. They link to a source that indicates that losses can be as high as .. well, exceeding the value of a seed stock used to plant the crop, so I guess that is greater than 100%?https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/27034#tosummaryOfInvasiveness https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/27034#tosummaryOfInvasive... The actual article in question cites 60% losses: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00852-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00852-5 The five-fold statement appears to be sloppy/misleading writing with respect to comparing the improvement over the baseline, not 5x the actual production. The article is not generally dishonest but the specific claims seem to be well into the "geez.. IDK guys.." territory.