Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.

Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes in the global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts. Organic farming­a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans­is often proposed as a solution. However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices. Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions­that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions­organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.

Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management.

In the coming decades, a crucial challenge for humanity will be meeting future food demands without undermining further the integrity of the Earth's environmental systems. Agricultural systems are already major forces of global environmental degradation, but population growth and increasing consumption of calorie- and meat-intensive diets are expected to roughly double human food demand by 2050 (ref. 3). Responding to these pressures, there is increasing focus on 'sustainable intensification' as a means to increase yields on underperforming landscapes while simultaneously decreasing the environmental impacts of agricultural systems. However, it is unclear what such efforts might entail for the future of global agricultural landscapes. Here we present a global-scale assessment of intensification prospects from closing 'yield gaps' (differences between observed yields and those attainable in a given region), the spatial patterns of agricultural management practices and yield limitation, and the management changes that may be necessary to achieve increased yields. We find that global yield variability is heavily controlled by fertilizer use, irrigation and climate. Large production increases (45% to 70% for most crops) are possible from closing yield gaps to 100% of attainable yields, and the changes to management practices that are needed to close yield gaps vary considerably by region and current intensity. Furthermore, we find that there are large opportunities to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture by eliminating nutrient overuse, while still allowing an approximately 30% increase in production of major cereals (maize, wheat and rice). Meeting the food security and sustainability challenges of the coming decades is possible, but will require considerable changes in nutrient and water management.

Solutions for a cultivated planet.

Increasing population and consumption are placing unprecedented demands on agriculture and natural resources. Today, approximately a billion people are chronically malnourished while our agricultural systems are concurrently degrading land, water, biodiversity and climate on a global scale. To meet the world's future food security and sustainability needs, food production must grow substantially while, at the same time, agriculture's environmental footprint must shrink dramatically. Here we analyse solutions to this dilemma, showing that tremendous progress could be made by halting agricultural expansion, closing 'yield gaps' on underperforming lands, increasing cropping efficiency, shifting diets and reducing waste. Together, these strategies could double food production while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture.

Trading carbon for food: global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land.

Expanding croplands to meet the needs of a growing population, changing diets, and biofuel production comes at the cost of reduced carbon stocks in natural vegetation and soils. Here, we present a spatially explicit global analysis of tradeoffs between carbon stocks and current crop yields. The difference among regions is striking. For example, for each unit of land cleared, the tropics lose nearly two times as much carbon (∼120 tons·ha(-1) vs. ∼63 tons·ha(-1)) and produce less than one-half the annual crop yield compared with temperate regions (1.71 tons·ha(-1)·y(-1) vs. 3.84 tons·ha(-1)·y(-1)). Therefore, newly cleared land in the tropics releases nearly 3 tons of carbon for every 1 ton of annual crop yield compared with a similar area cleared in the temperate zone. By factoring crop yield into the analysis, we specify the tradeoff between carbon stocks and crops for all areas where crops are currently grown and thereby, substantially enhance the spatial resolution relative to previous regional estimates. Particularly in the tropics, emphasis should be placed on increasing yields on existing croplands rather than clearing new lands. Our high-resolution approach can be used to determine the net effect of local land use decisions.

Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions inventories for agricultural burning using satellite observations of active fires.

Fires in agricultural ecosystems emit greenhouse gases and aerosols that influence climate on multiple spatial and temporal scales. Annex 1 countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), many of which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, are required to report emissions of CH4 and N2O from these fires annually. In this study, we evaluated several aspects of this reporting system, including the optimality of the crops targeted by the UNFCCC globally and within Annex 1 countries, and the consistency of emissions inventories among different countries. We also evaluated the success of individual countries in capturing interannual variability and long-term trends in agricultural fire activity. In our approach, we combined global high-resolution maps of crop harvest area and production, derived from satellite maps and ground-based census data, with Terra and Aqua Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) measurements of active fires. At a global scale, we found that adding ground nuts (e.g., peanuts), cocoa, cotton and oil palm, and removing potato, oats, rye, and pulse other from the list of 14 crops targeted by the UNFCCC increased the percentage of active fires covered by the reporting system by 9%. Optimization led to a different recommended list for Annex 1 countries, requiring the addition of sunflower, cotton, rapeseed, and alfalfa and the removal of beans, sugarcane, pulse others, and tuber-root others. Extending emissions reporting to all Annex 1 countries (from the current set of 19 countries) would increase the efficacy of the reporting system from 6% to 15%, and further including several non-Annex 1 countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Mexico, and Nigeria) would capture over 55% of active fires in croplands worldwide. Analyses of interannual trends from the United States and Australia showed the importance of both intensity of fire use and crop production in controlling year-to-year variations in agricultural fire emissions. Remote sensing provides an effective means for evaluating some aspects of the current UNFCCC emissions reporting system; and, if combined with census data, field experiments and expert opinion, has the potential to improve the robustness of the next generation inventory system.

Impact of regional climate change on human health.

The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate-health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events.

Climate Solutions Double as Health Interventions.

The climate crisis threatens to exacerbate numerous climate-sensitive health risks, including heatwave mortality, malnutrition from reduced crop yields, water- and vector-borne infectious diseases, and respiratory illness from smog, ozone, allergenic pollen, and wildfires. Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stress the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change, underscoring the need for more scientific assessment of the benefits of climate action for health and wellbeing. Project Drawdown has analyzed more than 80 solutions to address climate change, building on existing technologies and practices, that could be scaled to collectively limit warming to between 1.5° and 2 °C above preindustrial levels. The solutions span nine major sectors and are aggregated into three groups: reducing the sources of emissions, maintaining and enhancing carbon sinks, and addressing social inequities. Here we present an overview of how climate solutions in these three areas can benefit human health through improved air quality, increased physical activity, healthier diets, reduced risk of infectious disease, and improved sexual and reproductive health, and universal education. We find that the health benefits of a low-carbon society are more substantial and more numerous than previously realized and should be central to policies addressing climate change. Much of the existing literature focuses on health effects in high-income countries, however, and more research is needed on health and equity implications of climate solutions, especially in the Global South. We conclude that adding the myriad health benefits across multiple climate change solutions can likely add impetus to move climate policies faster and further.

Links between climate, malaria, and wetlands in the Amazon Basin.

Climate changes are altering patterns of temperature and precipitation, potentially affecting regions of malaria transmission. We show that areas of the Amazon Basin with few wetlands show a variable relationship between precipitation and malaria, while areas with extensive wetlands show a negative relationship with malaria incidence.

Prairie restoration and carbon sequestration: difficulties quantifying C sources and sinks using a biometric approach.

We investigated carbon cycling and ecosystem characteristics among two prairie restoration treatments established in 1987 and adjacent cropland, all part of the Conservation Reserve Program in southwestern Wisconsin, USA. We hypothesized that different plant functional groups (cool-season C3 vs. warm-season C4 grasses) between the two prairie restoration treatments would lead to differences in soil and vegetation characteristics and amount of sequestered carbon, compared to the crop system. We found significant (P < 0.05) differences between the two prairie restoration treatments in soil CO2 respiration and above- and belowground productivity, but no significant differences in long-term (approximately 16-year) carbon sequestration. We used a biometric approach aggregating short-term observations of above- and belowground productivity and CO2 respiration to estimate total net primary production (NPP) and net ecosystem production (NEP) using varied methods suggested in the literature. Net ecosystem production is important because it represents the ecosystem carbon sequestration, which is of interest to land managers and policymakers seeking or regulating credits for ecosystem carbon storage. Such a biometric approach would be attractive because it might offer the ability to rapidly assess the carbon source/sink status of an ecosystem. We concluded that large uncertainties in (1) estimating aboveground NPP, (2) determining belowground NPP, and (3) partitioning soil respiration into microbial and plant components strongly affect the magnitude, and even the sign, of NEP estimates made from aggregating its components. A comparison of these estimates across treatments could not distinguish differences in NEP, nor the absolute sign of the overall carbon balance. Longer-term quantification of carbon stocks in the soil, periodically linked to measurements of individual processes, may offer a more reliable measure of the carbon balance in grassland systems, suitable for assigning credits.

People on the land: changes in global population and croplands during the 20th century.

This study reviews the major changes in global distribution of croplands during the 20th century. During the 20th century, the cropland base diminished greatly (from approximately 0.75 ha person-1 in 1900 to approximately 0.35 ha person-1 in 1990). This loss of croplands was not globally uniform: more than half the world's population, living in developing nations, lost nearly two-thirds of their per capita cropland base. The distribution of croplands has become increasingly skewed--in 1990, 80% of the population lived off less than 0.35 ha person-1. While agricultural yields have generally increased, they have barely kept pace with population growth in developing nations. Overall, the global food production system is becoming increasingly vulnerable to regional disruptions because of our increasing reliance on expensive technological options to increase agricultural production, or on global food trade.

Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double Global Crop Production by 2050.

Several studies have shown that global crop production needs to double by 2050 to meet the projected demands from rising population, diet shifts, and increasing biofuels consumption. Boosting crop yields to meet these rising demands, rather than clearing more land for agriculture has been highlighted as a preferred solution to meet this goal. However, we first need to understand how crop yields are changing globally, and whether we are on track to double production by 2050. Using ∼2.5 million agricultural statistics, collected for ∼13,500 political units across the world, we track four key global crops-maize, rice, wheat, and soybean-that currently produce nearly two-thirds of global agricultural calories. We find that yields in these top four crops are increasing at 1.6%, 1.0%, 0.9%, and 1.3% per year, non-compounding rates, respectively, which is less than the 2.4% per year rate required to double global production by 2050. At these rates global production in these crops would increase by ∼67%, ∼42%, ∼38%, and ∼55%, respectively, which is far below what is needed to meet projected demands in 2050. We present detailed maps to identify where rates must be increased to boost crop production and meet rising demands.

Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation.

In the coming decades, continued population growth, rising meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will dramatically increase the pressure on global agriculture. Even as we face these future burdens, there have been scattered reports of yield stagnation in the world's major cereal crops, including maize, rice and wheat. Here we study data from ∼2.5 million census observations across the globe extending over the period 1961-2008. We examined the trends in crop yields for four key global crops: maize, rice, wheat and soybeans. Although yields continue to increase in many areas, we find that across 24-39% of maize-, rice-, wheat- and soybean-growing areas, yields either never improve, stagnate or collapse. This result underscores the challenge of meeting increasing global agricultural demands. New investments in underperforming regions, as well as strategies to continue increasing yields in the high-performing areas, are required.

Global consequences of land use.

Land use has generally been considered a local environmental issue, but it is becoming a force of global importance. Worldwide changes to forests, farmlands, waterways, and air are being driven by the need to provide food, fiber, water, and shelter to more than six billion people. Global croplands, pastures, plantations, and urban areas have expanded in recent decades, accompanied by large increases in energy, water, and fertilizer consumption, along with considerable losses of biodiversity. Such changes in land use have enabled humans to appropriate an increasing share of the planet's resources, but they also potentially undermine the capacity of ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and ameliorate infectious diseases. We face the challenge of managing trade-offs between immediate human needs and maintaining the capacity of the biosphere to provide goods and services in the long term.

Influence of geoengineered climate on the terrestrial biosphere.

Various geoengineering schemes have been proposed to counteract anthropogenically induced climate change. In a previous study, it was suggested that a 1.8% reduction in solar radiation incident on the Earth's surface could noticeably reduce regional and seasonal climate change from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, the response of the terrestrial biosphere to reduced solar radiation in a CO2-rich climate was not investigated. In this study, we hypothesized that a reduction in incident solar radiation in a Doubled CO2 atmosphere will diminish the net primary productivity (NPP) of terrestrial ecosystems, potentially accelerating the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. We used a dynamic global ecosystem model, the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS), to investigate this hypothesis in an unperturbed climatology. While this simplified modeling framework effectively separated the influence of CO2 and sunlight on the terrestrial biosphere, it did not consider the complex feedbacks within the Earth's climate system. Our analysis indicated that compared to a Doubled CO2 scenario, reduction in incident solar radiation by 1.8% in a double CO2 world will have negligible impact on the NPP of terrestrial ecosystems. There were, however, spatial variations in the response of NPP-engineered solar radiation. While productivity decreased by less than 2% in the tropical and boreal forests as hypothesized, it increased by a similar percentage in the temperate deciduous forests and grasslands. This increase in productivity was attributed to an approximately 1% reduction in evapotranspiration in the Geoengineered scenario relative to the Doubled CO2 scenario. Our initial hypothesis was rejected because of unanticipated effects of engineered solar radiation on the hydrologic cycle. However, any geoengineering approaches that reduce incident solar radiation need to be thoroughly analyzed in view of the implications on ecosystem productivity and the hydrologic cycle.