These studies sound trivial in the headlines because the headlines take out the quantitative degree of the effect, which was the hard-won part of the study. An excerpt:
>Utilizing this data, the researchers calculated that a reduction in NOx emissions of around 50% in each region would improve yields by approximately 25% for winter crops and 15% for summer crops in China. In Western Europe, yields were estimated to improve nearly 10% for both winter and summer crops.
Now it is possible to put a number on how much NOx is costing farmers.
This is the type of quantitative research that's hard to report because, in my mind, it's not particularly useful reporting. Simplifying it for layman understanding makes it seem completely trivial, as you point out. The methodological details that make the study interesting are only relevant to people who are gonna read the study anyway.
>Utilizing this data, the researchers calculated that a reduction in NOx emissions of around 50% in each region would improve yields by approximately 25% for winter crops and 15% for summer crops in China. In Western Europe, yields were estimated to improve nearly 10% for both winter and summer crops.
Now it is possible to put a number on how much NOx is costing farmers.