essay on impact of agriculture on environment

Essay on Impact Of Agriculture On Environment

Students are often asked to write an essay on Impact Of Agriculture On Environment in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Impact Of Agriculture On Environment

Land changes.

Farming changes land. Trees are cut to make farms, which means animals lose homes. This is called deforestation. It’s bad because trees help clean the air. Without trees, there’s more carbon dioxide, a gas that warms our planet.

Growing crops needs a lot of water. Sometimes, farmers take too much water from rivers and lakes. This can make these places dry up. It’s hard for fish and plants that need water to live when this happens.

Chemicals in Farming

Farmers use chemicals to keep bugs and weeds away from crops. These chemicals can get into the water and soil. This can hurt animals, plants, and even people who drink the water.

Soil Health

Farming can make soil less healthy. When the same crop is grown over and over, the soil loses its goodness. This means the land might not be able to grow crops in the future.

Helping the Environment

Farmers can help by using less water and chemicals. They can also grow different types of crops to keep the soil healthy. People are working on ways to farm without hurting the environment.

250 Words Essay on Impact Of Agriculture On Environment

Farming changes the land a lot. When we make space for crops and animals, we often cut down forests and grasslands. This means less home for wild animals and plants. The soil can get worse too, because there are no trees to keep it healthy and stop it from washing away when it rains.

Growing food needs a lot of water. Sometimes, farmers take more water from rivers and lakes than they should. This can mean not enough water for fish and other creatures. Also, if water is not used wisely, it can lead to problems like dry rivers and dropping water levels in the ground.

To protect crops from bugs and weeds, farmers often use chemicals. These can get into rivers and hurt fish and other water life. They can also make the soil less good for growing things over time. Plus, these chemicals can be bad for the health of people who live nearby.

Air Pollution

Farming can also add to air pollution. Machines like tractors release smoke that can dirty the air. Animals on farms, like cows, produce gases that can add to climate change. This is a big problem because it can lead to hotter weather and more extreme storms.

Farming is important because it gives us food. But it can also harm the environment in many ways. We need to find ways to grow food that are kind to the earth. This means using less water, fewer chemicals, and taking care of the land and air.

500 Words Essay on Impact Of Agriculture On Environment

Introduction to agriculture and the environment.

Agriculture is the art of growing plants and raising animals for food, clothing, and other products. It is a big part of our daily lives because we all need to eat and wear clothes. But farming also touches the environment in many ways. The environment includes the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on. When we farm, we change the environment, sometimes in good ways and sometimes in not-so-good ways.

Using Land for Farming

To grow crops or keep animals, farmers need a lot of land. This means they often have to clear forests or grasslands to make space for their farms. This can lead to fewer trees and plants that are homes for wild animals and birds. It also means there are fewer trees to soak up carbon dioxide from the air, which is important for keeping our planet’s temperature stable.

Water and Farming

Plants and animals on farms need water to live. Sometimes, farmers take a lot of water from rivers, lakes, or underground to water their crops. This can mean there is less water for fish, frogs, and other creatures that live in these places. It can also mean there is less water for people to drink or use for their homes.

Chemicals on the Farm

Farmers often use chemicals to help their crops grow better and to keep bugs and weeds away. These chemicals are called fertilizers and pesticides. While they can help the plants, they can also harm other living things. If too much of these chemicals get into the water or the soil, they can make it dirty and unsafe for wildlife and people.

Good Things Farming Does for the Environment

It’s not all bad news, though. Farming can also do nice things for the environment. Some farmers make sure they grow a variety of plants, which can help make the soil healthy and be good for insects like bees and butterflies. They also create ponds and leave some areas wild, which gives homes to lots of different animals and plants.

Climate Change and Agriculture

Farming can also affect the weather and climate. When we grow animals like cows and sheep, they produce gases that can make the Earth warmer. This is a big problem because a warmer Earth can lead to more extreme weather like heavy rains, hot spells, and droughts. But farmers can help by using less gas and oil on their farms and by growing trees and plants that store carbon dioxide.

In conclusion, agriculture has a big impact on the environment. It can change the land, use a lot of water, and spread chemicals that might not be safe. But farming can also do good things, like help wildlife and fight climate change. It’s important for farmers to think about how they farm, so they can feed us without hurting the planet. We all can help by knowing where our food comes from and choosing to eat things that are good for the environment.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Immune System
• Essay on Immigration Causes And Effects
• Essay on Dream House On The Beach

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Modifications

With the human population soaring out of control, agriculture must follow suit. But the innovations that boost crop yields carry ecological costs.

Biology, Ecology, Chemistry, Conservation

Rice Fields in Bali

More than half the planet's suitable land has been cultivated for crops, like these terraced rice fields in Bali, Indonesia.

Photograph by Cyril Ruoso/NaturePL

Agricultural methods have intensified continuously ever since the Industrial Revolution, and even more so since the “green revolution” in the middle decades of the 20th century. At each stage, innovations in farming techniques brought about huge increases in crop yields by area of arable land. This tremendous rise in food production has sustained a global population that has quadrupled in size over the span of one century. As the human population continues to grow, so too has the amount of space dedicated to feeding it. According to World Bank figures, in 2016, more than 700 million hectares (1.7 billion acres) were devoted to growing corn, wheat, rice, and other staple cereal grains—nearly half of all cultivated land on the planet. In the coming decades, however, meeting the demand for accelerated agricultural productivity is likely to be far more difficult than it has been so far. The reasons for this have to do with ecological factors. Global climate change is destabilizing many of the natural processes that make modern agriculture possible. Yet modern agriculture itself is also partly responsible for the crisis in sustainability. Many of the techniques and modifications on which farmers rely to boost output also harm the environment. Below are brief descriptions of three ways intensive agriculture threatens the precarious balance of nonagricultural ecosystems. Irrigation Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70 percent of human freshwater consumption. A great deal of this water is redirected onto cropland through irrigation schemes of varying kinds. Experts predict that to keep a growing population fed, water extraction may increase an additional 15 percent or more by 2050. Irrigation supports the large harvest yields that such a large population demands. Many of the world’s most productive agricultural regions, from California’s Central Valley to Southern Europe’s arid Mediterranean basin, have become economically dependent on heavy irrigation. Researchers and farmers alike are becoming increasingly aware of the consequences of this large-scale diversion of freshwater. One of the most obvious consequences is the depletion of aquifers , river systems, and downstream ground water. However, there are a number of other negative effects related to irrigation. Areas drenched by irrigation can become waterlogged , creating soil conditions that poison plant roots through anaerobic decomposition . Where water has been diverted, soils can accrue too much salt, also harming plant growth. Irrigation causes increases in water evaporation, impacting both surface air temperature and pressure as well as atmospheric moisture conditions. Recent studies have confirmed that cropland irrigation can influence rainfall patterns not only over the irrigated area but even thousands of miles away. Irrigation has also been connected to the erosion of coastlines and other kinds of long-term ecological and habitat destruction. Livestock Grazing A huge amount of agricultural territory is used primarily as pasture for cattle and other livestock. In the western United States, counting both federally managed and privately owned grazing lands, hundreds of millions of acres are set aside for this purpose—more than for any other type of land use. Agricultural livestock are responsible for a large proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, most notably methane. In addition, overgrazing is a major problem regarding environmental sustainability. In some places, stretches of forage land are consumed so extensively that grasses are unable to regenerate. The root systems of native vegetation can be damaged so much that the species die off. Near streambeds and in other riparian areas where cattle concentrate, the combination of overgrazing and fecal wastes can contaminate or compromise water sources. Cattle and other large grazing animals can even damage soil by trampling on it. Bare, compacted land can bring about soil erosion and destruction of topsoil quality due to the runoff of nutrients. These and other impacts can destabilize a variety of fragile ecosystems and wildlife habitats. Chemical Fertilizer Synthetic fertilizers containing nitrogen and phosphorus have been at the heart of the intensified farming from World War II to the present day. Modern agriculture has become heavily dependent on these chemical inputs, which have increased the number of people the world’s farms can feed. They are particularly effective in the growing of corn, wheat, and rice, and are largely responsible for the explosive growth of cereal cultivation in recent decades. China, with its rapidly growing population, has become the world’s leading producer of nitrogen fertilizers. While these chemicals have helped double the rate of food production, they have also helped bring about a gigantic increase, perhaps as high as 600 percent, of reactive nitrogen levels throughout the environment. The excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus have caused the once-beneficial nutrients to become pollutants. Roughly half the nitrogen in synthetic fertilizers escapes from the fields where it is applied, finding its way into the soil, air, water, and rainfall. After soil bacteria convert fertilizer nitrogen into nitrates, rainstorms or irrigation systems carry these toxins into groundwater and river systems. Accumulated nitrogen and phosphorus harm terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by loading them with too many nutrients, a process known as eutrophication . Nutrient pollution is a causal factor in toxic algae blooms affecting lakes in China, the United States, and elsewhere. As excessive amounts of organic matter decompose in aquatic environments, they can bring about oxygen depletion and create “dead zones” within bodies of water, where nothing can survive. Parts of the Gulf of Mexico are regularly afflicted in this manner. Nitrogen accumulation in water and on land threatens biodiversity and the health of native plant species and natural habitats. In addition, fertilizer application in soil leads to the formation and release of nitrous oxide, one of the most harmful greenhouse gases. With the global population continuing to skyrocket, the tension will continue to grow between continued agricultural growth and the ecological health of the land upon which humans depend.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

The People, Ideas, and Things Journal

Feeding Global Warming: Assessing the Impact of Agriculture on Climate Change

This essay examines the ways in which agricultural practices have influenced global climate change. Beginning with the Neolithic Revolution (12,000 years ago), and continuing through the Columbian Exchange (1492), Industrial Revolution (1760-1820s), and Green Revolution (1940s- ‘60s), agricultural practices have expanded and intensified. As these revolutions led to the domestication, diversification, and plant reliance on fertilizers and pesticides, the emission of greenhouse gases increased, and is still rising. Although it is known that these greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, contribute to climate change, many people believe they only come from industrial developments like factories and cars. However, since these gases are also emitted from agricultural practices, global warming may be influenced by more factors than the general public is aware. It can be concluded that previous agricultural advancements have been beneficial in supplying food, but while they are feeding the growing human population, agricultural practices are also feeding global climate change.

Introduction

Agriculture has always been essential to human life but is becoming detrimental to the environment. Food is one of the most basic needs for people around the world, but it may be contributing to climate change more than the general public is aware. Agriculture has been fundamental to civilization since our nomadic ancestors discovered how to domesticate crops and live off the land. However, with agricultural revolutions, including the Neolithic Revolution (12,000 years ago) and the Green Revolution (1940s-’60s), agricultural practices have become destructive. Other historical events including the Columbian Exchange (1492) and the Industrial Revolution (1760-1820, 1840s) have increased agricultural output, but have also increased greenhouse gas output. Today’s expansive and intensive agricultural practices are contributing to global climate change through increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

Global warming can be attributed to three primary greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. While research has proved that fossil fuels are responsible for most of the recent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, fossil fuels are not the only contributors. An increasing number of studies in Nature, a respected research journal, argue that agricultural practices contribute large amounts of methane and nitrous dioxide to the atmosphere; these gases will have longer lasting effects on the environment than carbon dioxide. While it cannot be denied that agriculture emits these gases, few researchers have looked at the root of these practices so that we can better understand the increased rate of these emissions. Researchers like W. Neil Adger and Katrina Brown argue that most of the greenhouse gases produced by agriculture come from mass production of livestock, manure use, and fertilizer use. Deforestation and soil degradation, both results of agricultural expansion, emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Livestock, manure, and fertilizers contain large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, making them primary emitters of these gases (Foley et al.). The harmful impact agriculture has on the environment will only increase with time, especially since the world population is continuing to rise, and with it rises the danger of food scarcity.

Before debating this topic in greater depth, it is important to understand basic agricultural practices. For example, intensive agricultural practices refer to systems of cultivation that use “large amounts of labor and capital relative to land area” (Encyclopedia Britannica). Labor and capital are required for the large amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water that maintain the land. Capital is also required to purchase and maintain high-efficiency machinery. Intensive agriculture is practiced primarily in developed countries. In developing countries or lower-income regions of the world, subsistence agriculture is the primary cultivation technique. Subsistence farmers are “those who produce only enough crops to feed their family” (Rosenberg). This type of farming uses minimal amounts of fertilizers and relies on small amounts of labor. Intensive and subsistence agriculture differ primarily in their goals—to make a commercial gain versus to make dinner.

Past Research and Research Gaps

The events I plan on analyzing have been discussed in previous research. Because the Neolithic Revolution marks the beginning of agriculture, it is cited by many scientists as the starting point for current agricultural practices (Ruddiman; Adger and Brown). Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, humans were hunters and gatherers. Although this lifestyle did have some impact on the environment, it was not until the domestication of crops that carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide began to be released from the soil (Ruddiman). The results of the Neolithic Revolution’s innovations are major factors of greenhouse gas emissions (Ruddiman). Although researchers agree on this topic, my research will connect this event with other events that have had larger impacts on climate change.

The Columbian Exchange is a unique event in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. While researchers do not think the event itself was a cause of negative agricultural practices, the spread of crops caused by the exchange pushed us toward intensive agriculture (Shmoop). However, this subject is controversial as some researchers disagree that the Columbian Exchange contributed to global warming. There are differing opinions about the effects of the exchange. Some researchers believe the Columbian Exchange led to intensive agriculture, but the significance of their studies is minimal.

Researchers analyzing this topic argue that the Columbian Exchange caused agriculture to become more intensive as farmers grew crops that were not indigenous to their respective regions. As continental drift occurred, so did the evolution of crops (Richmond). Therefore, the plants traded in the Columbian Exchange required more intensive agriculture in order to meet wanted yields.

Researchers agree that the Industrial Revolution is one of the greatest causes of global warming, although only some relate this to greenhouse gases emitted from new agricultural practices (Adger and Brown; Grimm; Davidson). However, it is undeniable that the Industrial Revolution caused agriculture to expand into more rural areas as cities grew and caused agriculture to become more intensive in order to support the developed world’s growing population (Davidson). The Industrial Revolution was a step forward for humanity but a destructive force on the environment. The Earth is significantly hotter now than it would have been without the greenhouse gases emitted by the Industrial Revolution (Grimm). The Industrial Revolution’s effect on agriculture led to greenhouse gas emissions just as detrimental as the emissions of the factories being built at the same time.

The most recent shift in agricultural practices was caused by the Green Revolution, an agricultural renovation in the 1940s that incorporated manufactured fertilizers and high-yielding crops into existing agricultural practices (Andrews). Because this revolution is more recent, researchers have more data on how this event has begun to impact global warming than any other agricultural revolution. Without the increased yield of crops caused by the Green Revolution, the greenhouse gases that would have entered the planet’s atmosphere “would have been equal to as much as one third of the world’s total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution” (Hill). While this shows that the Green Revolution has reduced emission levels, this does not negate the intensive agriculture practices it caused. These practices include the use of fertilizers and pesticides that emit greenhouse gasses.

Agriculture has undergone many changes since the Neolithic Revolution as a result of technological advances, although some of these advances may be costly down the road. The Neolithic Revolution brought about the widespread practice of agriculture, the Columbian Exchange facilitated the spread of nonindigenous crops to many regions around the world, the Industrial Revolution led to agricultural expansion into forests, and the Green Revolution increased the amount of fertilizers and reduced crop diversity. All these events contributed to global warming. Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas emissions is an indirect result of revolutions that brought about positive change for humans but negative change for the environment.

The Neolithic Revolution

The history of agriculture begins with the Neolithic Revolution, an event that occurred around 12,000 years ago but is still having lasting impacts. The warming of the Earth in this post-Ice Age period allowed humans to stay in one place where crops were planted and animals were domesticated (Gascoigne). Although the Neolithic Revolution allowed populations to flourish and cities to develop, it can also be held accountable for the beginning of poor agricultural practices.

The Neolithic Revolution was sparked by climate change. The earth warmed up; as a result, plants were more abundant and animals migrated to colder regions. Some humans began cultivating the surplus of crops, while others continued the practice of hunting and gathering. Jericho is the first known region where crop cultivation occurred, and it is also the first known town, with a population of 2,000 people (Gascoigne). While the adoption of crop cultivation helped civilizations like Jericho develop and increase their populations, there is a negative side to crop cultivation. The change in land use from forests to farmland released carbon into the atmosphere. Because trees absorb carbon, tearing them down causes their stored carbon to be released into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, this carbon can undergo a chemical reaction and become carbon dioxide (Adger and Brown). Jericho is one example of how agricultural practices led to increased populations, further contributing to global warming through deforestation.

Another type of agricultural change caused by the Neolithic Revolution was the domestication of livestock, which allowed humans to become less nomadic. Villages and towns were able to develop and survive off of nearby resources. However, the domestication of livestock caused resources to go to animals instead of humans, meaning more crops had to be produced (Foley et al.). Another negative result of livestock is the amount of manure produced, which contains large amounts of methane. While carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide levels were not severely influenced by the Neolithic Revolution, they have experienced increases in the past 8,000 years that have caused the Earth to be warmer than it would have been without anthropogenic influences (Ruddiman). This revolution marks the beginning of a rise in anthropogenic gases and also created the groundwork for future agricultural practices that have had greater impacts on global warming.

The Columbian Exchange

Most of the world’s crop diversity is a result of evolution and the Columbian Exchange. To fully understand the evolution of agriculture, it is necessary to look back at a pre-agriculture environment. Approximately 200-270 million years ago, the same species of certain plants and animals were present on multiple continents. An example of this is Glossopteris, a tropical forest fern that has been found fossilized in South America, Africa, India, and Australia (Richmond). However, today there is no plant like Glossopteris; there are no single plant species that inhabit multiple regions of the world. Some plants may be closely related, but none are the exact same species (Akioyamen). Species that are present on multiple continents were indigenous to one area and then transported around the world by humans.

Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution are most commonly used to explain the diversity of animals and other active creatures. However, Darwin’s theories can also be used to analyze the idea that crops have adapted and evolved to be successful in their environments. This idea is supported by the plant Brassica oleracea. By selecting for certain traits like leaf size and amount of flower development, this plant has been used to create broccoli, cabbage, kale, and cauliflower (Courteau). This can be applied to the wide variety of crops present today. At some point in time, there may have been similar crops like Glossopteris on multiple continents, but the differing environments after the split of Pangaea most likely selected different traits for each plant so that, after many generations, the plants became unique species distinct from similar crops in other regions of the world (Darwin).

When Columbus arrived to the “New World” in 1492 there were new exotic crops that had very small resemblance to the plants grown in the “Old World.” Therefore, it follows that the crops present in the “New World” and “Old World” were the best suited for their environments and should have been cultivated there, and only there (Foley et al.). While it may be argued that some crops are able to produce higher yields in nonindigenous areas, it is important to consider the technology available in different regions of the world. For example, developed countries have more access to fertilizers and large plows than developing countries. Therefore, developed countries are able to produce higher yields, but at a greater environmental cost.

Expanding different crops to more regions of the world has caused intensification to become necessary to keep yields high. Because the Columbian Exchange was responsible for spreading crops to regions where they were not as successful, agriculture expanded to produce the needed yields and caused increased deforestation. Therefore, the Columbian Exchange increased emissions of carbon dioxide. While the Columbian Exchange has been identified as an extremely important event in facilitating trade between two worlds, recent research regarding intensification and expansion of agriculture supports the claim that, in some ways, the Columbian Exchange caused the use of land practices that have contributed to global warming.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in 1750 and spread to the entire US in the 1860s. This introduced new agricultural technology, including more efficient plows and devices that allowed more seeds to be planted at one time. The time saved on preparation allowed larger amounts of crops to be planted at one time. The development of meat processing factories that occurred after the Industrial Revolution caused livestock production to increase. Both crop and meat production led to the expansion and intensification of agriculture. As the population increased, urban sprawl also occurred and more areas were deforested to make room for croplands and living spaces. All of these events caused methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide levels to increase.

The Industrial Revolutions of Britain and the United States are known for increasing carbon dioxide emissions; however, it is possible that they led to the emission of other greenhouse gases through expansion and intensification of agriculture. The Industrial Revolution caused cities to expand and populations to increase. As a result, agriculture was moved further from cities and spread into more rural areas. During the Industrial Revolution the population reached 1 billion people, making more intensive agricultural practices necessary (McLamb). From 1960 to 1999 methane concentrations grew six times faster than during any other 40 year span. This was a result of human influences including emissions from natural gases and livestock production (“Greenhouse Gas Sources”). Following the Industrial Revolution, there was also an increase in nitrous oxide as agriculture was adapted to meet population needs, although the increase was not as great as the change in methane emissions. The use of nitrogen-based fertilizers and the cultivation of soils in tropical regions have been the primary contributors to nitrous oxide emissions (Davidson). However, without these practices food production would not be as efficient and more people would go hungry.

The Green Revolution

While the Green Revolution is known for increasing crop yields in developing regions where populations were growing faster than food production, the Green Revolution is also responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. During the time of the Green Revolution, India was close to a major famine, but a modified type of rice allowed more food to be produced with less land. So how can something so beneficial be so detrimental? The real debate on this topic is whether the impact of greenhouse gases is greater now, after the Green Revolution, or if it would have been worse without the Green Revolution, if we had just maintained post-industrial land use practices.

The Green Revolution transformed agricultural practices by making them more intensive, thereby reducing the amount of land needed. However, the amount of gases being produced by intensive agricultural practices is still dangerous to the environment without the expansion of agriculture (Hill). Although decreasing the rate of deforestation is beneficial because it reduces carbon emissions, decreasing deforestation will not succeed long-term because the world population continues to grow. Even after the implementation of “green” practices which reduced deforestation, carbon dioxide has experienced a seasonal rise of 15% over the past five decades (Andrews). This can be attributed to the larger seasonal range in crop growth that was caused by the Green Revolution. With modified crops, farmers are able to produce crops for a longer period of time, meaning crops release more and absorb less carbon dioxide (Andrews).

If the Green Revolution had not occurred and the agricultural processes of the industrial age had continued, the emission of greenhouse gases would not have undergone severe fluctuation. The combination of agricultural practices and deforestation during the Industrial Revolution would have released slightly more greenhouse gases than the intensive agriculture of the Green Revolution. Even with this information, it is difficult to determine which agricultural practices are better. The use of modified crops and fertilizers is harmful to the environment, but for many developing countries, these practices are the only way to feed their nations. Developing new techniques that maintain the current level of crop production will be the only way to transition away from the harmful practices of the Green Revolution.

While agriculture’s impact on the environment cannot be completely prevented, researchers have proposed practices that would reduce the impact. Some of the most promising solutions are reducing waste by shifting diets and increasing agricultural resource efficiency (Foley et al.). The solutions differ between developed and developing countries because agricultural practices are dependent on the amount of technology. Different countries contribute different concentrations of each greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.

Because raising livestock contributes more harmful gases than producing crops, reducing the amount of meat-based diets would lessen the emission of greenhouse gases from agriculture and land use practices. Another solution that primarily targets developing countries is increasing resource efficiency or implementing more sustainable agricultural practices. Since fertilizers are responsible for polluting water and emitting nitrous oxide, using them more efficiently would reduce their impact (Foley et al.). There are many solutions for reducing agriculture’s emission levels, but they will only be effective when countries enforce new policies.

While these ideas seem feasible, many countries are unsuccessful in implementing policies because they are not sure if the benefits will outweigh the loss in food production. Foley et al. negates that argument by saying more people would be fed if less resources went to livestock. Because livestock must also be fed, large amounts of agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for cows, pigs, chickens, and other mass-produced animals. Redirecting this food to humans could counteract the decrease in calorie consumption caused by eliminating meat from one’s diet. Researchers agree that implementing policies to reduce emissions will be worth it in the future, but the short-term impacts turn many diplomats away from reform.

While the lasting effects of global warming are not fully understood, the causes are widely accepted to be the emission of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have always been present in Earth’s current atmosphere; however, the concentration levels have undergone severe fluctuation. The advantages brought by the Neolithic Revolution, Columbian Exchange, Industrial Revolution, and Green Revolution must be weighed against their contributions to greenhouse gases.

The domestication, diversification, spread, and intensification of crops all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most successful, change-inducing events in human history are indirect causes of global warming. Is it possible to develop agricultural practices into something more environmentally friendly? Perhaps the cavemen of the Pliocene Epoch in the Tertiary Period (5 to 1.8 million years ago) were more aware of their impact on their surroundings than we are today. Our collective lack of empathy for the environment may lead to the end of our time on Earth. Of course, this apocalypse will not be experienced by our generation, or even our grandchildren. But one day, our descendants will face the consequences of our neglect. The earth is always changing, and we have only begun to understand it. Too often environmental scientists look at future emissions and the ways in which global warming has increased within the last decade. Maybe it is time to look deeper in the past. How have events only mentioned in textbooks influenced lifestyles today? Are we really better off than the hunters and gatherers of the pre-Neolithic age? At what point will our knowledge and technology become too great for our own good? We may never know, but our great-great grandchildren will surely face the impacts of the path we have chosen.

*Photo courtesy of Jane Boles: https://www.flickr.com/photos/janeboles/3895515737

Adger, W. Neil, and Brown, Katrina. Land Use and the Causes of Global Warming. United Kingdom: Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1995. Print.

Akioyamen, Sele. “Artificial Selection: Survival of the Fittest.” Things Should Be Made as Simple as Possible. Things Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, 31 Jan. 2010. Web 01 Apr. 2015.

Andrews, Candice G. “When Going Green Isn’t Good.” Good Nature Travel. Natural Habitat Adventures, 16 Dec. 2014. Web. 04 Apr. 2015.

Courteau, Jacqueline. “Brassica Oleracea.” Brief Summary from Jacqueline Courteau. Encyclopedia of Life, 6 July 2012. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Davidson, Eric. “The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860.” Nature Geoscience 2 (2009): 659-662. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

Encyclopedia Britannica. “Intensive Agriculture.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, 03 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Foley, Johnathan, et al. “Solutions for a cultivated planet.” Nature 478 (2011): 337-342. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

Gascoigne, Bamber. “Hunters-gatherers to Farmers.” History World, 2001. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

“Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks.” Sources and Sinks – American Chemical Society. American Chemical Society, (2015). Web. 02 Mar. 2015

Hill, Joshua S. “Unexpected Impact of Green Revolution on Climate Change.” PlanetSave. PlanetSave, 14 June 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

McLamb, Eric. “Impact of the Industrial Revolution.” Ecology Global Network. Ecology Global Network, 18 Sept. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2015.

“Plant Evolution.” Wyrdscience. WordPress, 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Rosenberg, Matt. “Geography of Agriculture.” About Education. About.com, (2015). Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Richmond, Elliot. “Continental Drift.” Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research, (2002). Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

Ruddiman, William F. “How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?” Scientific American. Scientific American, (2005). Web. Feb. 2015.

Emma Layman

Environmental Studies and Hispanic Studies

Tags: agriculture climate global warming history

Recent Posts

• Next story  Competitive Youth Sports and the Rise of Overuse, Burnout, and Career-Ending Injury
• Previous story  Mind Games: Exploring and Analyzing the Mind of an Athlete

The Mental Health Gap: Addressing Racial Disparities in Mental Health Care at Predominantly White Universities

A color-tural experience: the role of color in the emperor’s new ​​groove, malaria: difficulties contributing to eradication efforts within central africa, navigating navigation: assessing the relationship between airline elasticities and price setting, milk to mylk: the growing popularity of plant-based milk alternatives.

art athletics biology climate college community culture disease economics education elections food football gaming gender genetics health history HIV law literature media medicine music North Carolina nutrition philosophy poetry policy politics psychology public health regulation religion rhetoric sex sexuality social society sports statistics students technology urban violence

The Challenge of Feeding the World Sustainably: Summary of the US-UK Scientific Forum on Sustainable Agriculture (2021)

Chapter: 2 agriculture's impacts on biodiversity, the environment, and climate, 2 agriculture’s impacts on biodiversity, the environment, and climate.

Agriculture has had major impacts on biodiversity and the environment. Inputs to agriculture in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, and the mechanization of farming have grown, which has produced higher yields but also has increased pollution of the air, water, and soil. The expansion of agriculture to previously wildland and the more intense harvesting of seafoods have placed new pressures on wild habitats and fisheries. Greenhouse gases from agriculture are contributing to higher temperatures and changing precipitation patterns, which have further stressed many plant and animal species.

Biodiversity and the state of the environment also have had major impacts on agriculture. Changes in climate are already affecting which crops can be grown where and the productivity of farmlands and pasturelands. Declining biodiversity is reducing the numbers and variety of pollinators, loosening natural checks on pests, and eliminating species that could have benefited humans in the future.

These and other interconnections among agriculture, biodiversity, and the environment add complexity to efforts to change food systems. However, these interactions also increase the number of ways in which agricultural production, biodiversity, and environmental resilience can be enhanced. For example, improving agricultural production while reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture requires considering broader ecological processes and ecosystem services as well as the wider social and cultural consequences of farmers’ knowledge and actions.

A GRICULTURE AND C LIMATE C HANGE

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reflecting a consensus of both scientists and governments, higher temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of extreme events are already affecting food security. 1 For example, fruit and vegetable production, a key component of healthy diets, is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Livestock is also vulnerable, with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature expected to degrade the productivity, species composition, biogeochemistry, and the quantity and the quality of forage available to herbivores in pastoral systems.

Agriculture is already a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and it is likely to become a proportionately greater contributor as other sectors engage in mitigation. Agriculture’s contributions

___________________

1 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, and J. Malley, eds. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

to greenhouse gas emissions comes not only from fossil fuel use but also from land clearing for cropping and grazing; methane emissions from ruminant livestock, rice cultivation, and burning of manure and biomass; and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere as a result of fertilizer use. 2 Agriculture uses more inputs of natural resources per unit of value added than any other sector of the economy, including manufacturing, construction, and transportation (see Figure 2-1 ). Furthermore, even with these outsized inputs, the current incremental rate of improvement in agricultural production is only a few percent per year. Even if all non-agricultural fossil fuel use was to stop, future greenhouse gas emissions solely from agriculture because of land clearing, ruminants, manure, rice, burning, and nitrous oxide from fertilized soils would, in total, accumulate so as to exceed the emissions limit set by the Paris Agreement for staying below a 2o Celsius global temperature increase. 3

Challenges from climate change are often multiple and linked, like drought and saltwater intrusion for farmers, or losses due to insect pests in a warming climate. Climate change also produces tradeoffs that have to be accommodated within food systems. For example, increased carbon dioxide can cause crops to grow faster, but it can also lower the nutritional quality of the crops.

2 Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution to Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 811–922, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J. Minx, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

3 Clark, M. A., N. G. G. Domingo, K. Colgan, S. K. Thakrar, D. Tilman, J. Lynch, I. L. Azevedo, and J. D. Hill. 2020. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370(6517):705–708.

T HE U SE OF N ITROGEN IN A GRICULTURE

The use of nitrogen in agriculture is a good example of the complex interactions among agriculture, climate, and other environmental issues. Since the 1960s, global agricultural use of fertilizer on cropland has increased more than fivefold (see Figure 2-2 ). 4 This has resulted in large increases of nitrogen in the environment, including nitrates in groundwater, runoff into rivers and coastal areas, and increases in the level of nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Nitrogen oxides and ammonium contribute to air pollution, with an estimated 19,000 people dying prematurely every year in the United States because of particulate matter caused by these and other agricultural emissions. 5 Nitrous oxide generated largely by agriculture is already responsible for about 8 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming, a number that will go up as nitrogen use continues to increase. 6

4 Lassaletta, L., G. Billen, J. Garnier, L. Bouwman, E. Velazquez, N. D. Mueller, and J. S Gerber. 2016. Nitrogen use in the global food system: Past trends and future trajectories of agronomic performance, pollution, trade, and dietary demand. Environmental Research Letters 11(9):095007.

5 Thakrar, S. K., S. Balasubramanian, P. J. Adams, I. M. L. Azevedo, N. Z. Muller, S. N. Pandis, S. Polasky, C. Arden Pope III, A. L. Robinson, J. S. Apte, C. W. Tessum, J. D. Marshall, and J. D. Hill. 2020. Reducing mortality from air pollution in the United States by targeting specific emission sources. Environmental Science and Technology Letters 7:639−645.

6 Tian, H., C. Lu, P. Ciais, A. M. Michalak, J. G. Canadell, E. Saikawa, D. N. Huntzinger, K. R. Gurney, S. Sitch, B. Zhang, J. Yang, P. Bousquet, L. Bruhwiler, G. Chen, E. Dlugokencky, P. Friedlingstein, J. Melillo, S. Pan, B. Poulter, R. Prinn, M. Saunois, C. R. Schwalm, and S. C. Wofsy. 2016. The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Nature 531:225–228.

Climate change will further boost the amount of nitrous oxide released into the environment. 7 As the use of nitrogen-intensive crops expands and moves into areas previously too cold to support such crops, nitrogen losses to the atmosphere will increase. Extreme events such as droughts and intense rainfall will depress the uptake of nitrogen by plants, causing more nitrogen to enter the broader environment. Longer growing seasons and warmer winters will lead to more mineralization of nitrogen by microorganisms from insoluble organic forms to soluble and biologically available forms. Where fertilization rates exceed what crops need, the emissions of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere from unused nitrogen increase. 8 For example, when growing switchgrass for biofuels, the production of nitrous oxide from excess fertilizer application could halve the climate benefits. 9

Tailoring fertilizer rate to crop type and productivity could help avoid such losses. 10 For example, crop yield maps can reveal areas within fields that routinely have lower productivity than other areas. These areas could be fertilized at lower rates so that unused nitrogen does not pollute water and the atmosphere. Alternatively, fields could be subdivided so that low-yielding cropland is used for conservation and bioenergy production. Winter cover crops could be used to scavenge nitrogen, which is especially effective given that most nitrogen is lost in the off season. However, none of these solutions is sufficient to solve the problem, and all require incentivization if they are to take place.

Barriers to reducing the use of nitrogen are largely social and economic rather than technical. Today, agricultural production is aimed toward high yields, not toward greenhouse gas mitigation or nitrate conservation. However, evidence indicates that agriculture could be managed to maximize environmental benefits with only a minimal reduction in yields. 11 For example, when the European Union introduced a directive in the 1990s that requires farmers to show how much fertilizer they need to produce their crops, farmers began using less nitrogen while yields continued to increase.

7 Robertson, G. P., and P. M. Vitousek. 2009. Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34:97–125.

8 McSwiney, C. P., and G. P. Robertson. 2005. Non-linear response of N2O flux to incremental fertilizer addition in a continuous maize (Zea mays L.) cropping system. Global Change Biology 11(10):1712–1719.

9 Ruan, L., A. K. Bhardwaj, S. K. Hamilton, and G. P. Robertson. 2016. Nitrogen fertilization challenges the climate benefit of cellulosic biofuels. Environmental Research Letters 11:064007.

10 Millar, N., A. Urrea, K. Kahmark, I. Shcherbak, G. P. Robertson, and I. Ortiz-Monasterio. 2018. Nitrous oxide (N2O) flux responds exponentially to nitrogen fertilizer in irrigated wheat in the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 261:125–132.

11 Snapp, S. S., R. G. Smith, and G. P. Robertson. 2015. Designing cropping systems for ecosystem services. Pp. 378–408 in S. K. Hamilton, J. E. Doll, and G. P. Robertson, eds. The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability . New York: Oxford University Press.

A GRICULTURE AND B IODIVERSITY

In addition to its effects on climate, the expansion of agriculture has caused massive losses in biodiversity around the world: natural habitats have been converted to farms and pastures, pesticides and fertilizers have polluted the environment, and soils have been degraded. Many plant and animal populations will face extinction in future decades as land clearing and agricultural production increase. 12 Agricultural ecosystems have also become less diverse as the use of crop monocultures has expanded. Even in developed countries such as the United States, directives to use more land for biofuels have caused millions of acres to be converted to monoculture crops, like corn, that had not been grown on that land before.

As with climate change, the interactions of agriculture and biodiversity run both ways. Greater biodiversity benefits agriculture through such effects as an increase in pollinators, the presence of species that reduce pests, and better soil quality. For example, work in ecology has demonstrated a strong link between biodiversity and the stability and productivity of ecosystems. 13 , 14 , 15

Similarly, a greater diversity of crop types within agricultural systems can improve national food security and stability. 16 At a national level, some crops do better in warm years while others do better in cool years, or in wetter and drier years. By averaging across crop yields, greater crop diversity increases the year-to-year stability of national yields and the reliability of food production. Box 2-1 looks at some of the issues involved in protecting biodiversity while maintaining agricultural yields.

12 Tilman, D., M. Clark, D. R. Williams, K. Kimmel, S. Polasky, and C. Packer. 2017. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546:73–81.

13 Tilman, D., and J. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365.

14 Isbell, F., D. Craven, J. Connolly, M. Loreau, B. Schmid, C. Beierkuhnlein, T. M. Bezemer, C. Bonin, H. Bruelheide, E. de Luca, A. Ebeling, J. N. Griffin, Q. Guo, Y. Hautier, A. Hector, A. Jentsch, J. Kreyling, V. Lanta, P. Manning, S. T. Meyer, A. S. Mori, S. Naeem, P. A. Niklaus, H. W. Polley, P. B. Reich, C. Roscher, E. W. Seabloom, M. D. Smith, M. P. Thakur, D. Tilman, B. F. Tracy, W. H. van der Putten, J. van Ruijven, A. Weigelt, W. W. Weisser, B. Wilsey, and N. Eisenhauer. 2015. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526:574–577.

15 Cardinale, B. J., K. Gross, K. Fritschie, P. Flombaum, J. W. Fox, C. Rixen, J. van Ruijven, P. B. Reich, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, and B. J. Wilsey. 2013. Biodiversity simultaneously enhances the production and stability of community biomass, but the effects are independent. Ecology 94(8):1697–1707.

16 Renard, D., and D. Tilman. 2019. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571:257–260.

T HE C URRENT T RAJECTORY

As global population and per capita incomes continue to grow, demand for food will increase. 17 Growing more crops for consumption by both people and livestock will require increasing yields on existing land or converting more wildland to cropland. Increasing yields on existing land implies decreasing the gaps between how much a given area of land is capable of producing and how much it produces today, which in the past has usually entailed increasing the use of fertilizer, irrigations, new kinds of cultivars, and other inputs to agriculture. But more inputs to agriculture have historically resulted in greater negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment. In addition, the yields of some crops appear to be reaching their limits as previous increases have leveled off. 18

Agriculture will continue to adapt to new environmental conditions, as it has in the past. For example, the planting of maize has moved away from the hottest regions and toward cooler regions, which has reduced the negative effects of temperature increases. 19 In contrast, soybean production has moved toward warmer regions that boost yields. Since the early 1980s, planting of maize begins more than 10 days earlier on average and grain filling is more than 1 week longer, with a resulting increase in yields. 20

17 Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B. L. Befort. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(50):20260–20264.

18 Grassini, P., K. M. Eskridge, and K. G. Cassman. 2013. Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. Nature Communications 4:2918.

19 Sloat, L. L., S. J. Davis, J. S. Gerber, F. C. Moore, D. K. Ray, P. C. West, and N. D. Mueller. 2020. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nature Communications 11:1243.

20 Butler, E. E., N. D. Mueller, and P. Huybers. 2018. Peculiarly pleasant weather for US maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(47):11935–11940.

Farmers will continue to manage crops to minimize or avoid harms to yields caused by changed conditions and take advantage of new opportunities. They will choose different crops to grow, which will result in the migration of crops across landscapes. Plants and animals will be bred to be more resistant to warmer temperatures, increased humidity, and other environmental changes. Many practices can be optimized and scaled up to advance such adaptations, including investments in infrastructure, capacity building, decision systems, market connectivity, and supply chains. Given that the drivers of change are global, adaptation will also need to take place from the perspective of the global food system.

However, it will be important to understand the limits of agricultural systems to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Farmers, for example, face severe and increasing economic pressures that are not directly related to environmental changes. Agriculture is a powerful system, but post-farm industries are even more powerful. The economic value added to a nation’s gross domestic product from farming is typically a small percentage of the value added by the entire food system, including processing, distribution, and retail. In the United Kingdom, agriculture accounts for only about 8 percent of the value added in the country’s overall food system. 21 Food and drink manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing, in contrast, account for 59 percent, while cafés, restaurants, and other food sales venues account for another 29 percent. Similarly, in the United States, farms receive about 12 cents of every dollar spent by U.S. consumers. At the same time, prices for major commodities like corn, soybeans, and wheat in the United States have dropped to historical lows. While these low prices benefit consumers, the lack of revenue flowing to farmers is a major reason why farmers in these countries and elsewhere rely heavily on subsidies, while conservation receives substantially less governmental support.

The dynamics of the global food system are further challenged by imbalances among urban and rural areas, among countries, and among regions. Countries such as the United States produce more food than they require, while other countries must rely on imports to meet their needs. Mega-cities in the global South have become reliant on the global commodity trade, and their environmental footprints are rising at an even faster rate than their populations. Many aspects of the global food system have not been stress tested against environmental or social shocks that can be expected to occur in the future.

in addition to the demands made of land to produce food, pressure will grow to use land for the production of bioenergy and to sequester carbon. This pressure could increase the conversion of land to agriculture, the degradation of already farmed land, and food insecurity. Integrating bioenergy production and carbon sequestration into sustainably managed landscapes could produce fewer adverse side effects and have other positive co-benefits, such as salinity control, enhanced biodiversity, and reduced eutrophication. However, it will be necessary to figure out how contrasting land uses can work together in complementary ways.

21 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 2019. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2019 . London, UK: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

An underlying question is how land ought to be used. 22 Land can provide food, habitat, bioenergy, climate change mitigation, amenities, housing, timber, and other services and resources. Agriculture is part of much broader systems that have many actors, many sectors, and many needs. Food security can mean many different things, including food nationalism, self-sufficiency, defense, control, resilience, risk management, capacity, and sovereignty. Analyzing and rationalizing these many services will require a multidisciplinary approach and inclusive consultation with stakeholders.

The 2009 Royal Society report Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture , adapting an earlier analysis, 23 defined sustainability as having four attributes: 24

• Persistence: the capacity to continue to deliver desired outputs over long periods of time (human generations), thus conferring predictability
• Resilience: the capacity to absorb, utilize, or even benefit from perturbations (shocks and stresses) and thus persist without qualitative changes in structure
• Autarchy: the capacity to deliver desired outputs from inputs and resources (factors of production) acquired from within key system boundaries
• Benevolence: the capacity to produce desired outputs (e.g., food, fiber, fuel, oil) while sustaining the functioning of ecosystem services and not causing depletion of natural capital (e.g., minerals, biodiversity, soil, clean water)

Similarly, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations established five principles that must be pursued to make agriculture sustainable: 25

• Improve efficiency in the use of resources
• Conserve, protect, and enhance natural resources
• Protect and improve rural livelihoods, equity, and social well-being
• Strengthen the resilience of people, communities, and ecosystems to climate change and market volatility
• Promote responsible and effective governance mechanisms

Given these objectives, the challenge of sustainable agriculture is how to produce sufficient and nutritious food for all people with low environmental impacts. As discussed in the remainder of this summary, many deliberative levers of change can be used to address this challenge, including increased agricultural efficiency and yields, smarter land use, better use of markets and trade, reductions of

22 Lang, T. 2020. Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them . London, UK: Penguin.

23 Pretty, J. N. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363(1491):447–465.

24 Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. London, UK: Royal Society.

25 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: Principles and Approaches . Rome, Italy: FAO.

waste, and shifts in diets. In addition, forced levers of change, such as the coronavirus pandemic that gripped the world in 2020, can be expected to change food systems, though often in ways that are difficult to predict.

T HE N EED FOR C HANGE

Under a business-as-usual scenario, the deleterious environmental effects of current food systems will continue to increase. Higher levels of food production will require more fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation and more extensive resource extraction from the land and sea. This will be the case in places where growing populations, increased demand, and existing yield gaps will exert pressures to convert more wildland to cropland in particular (see Figure 2-3 ). Such an approach would bring more air and water pollution, increases in greenhouse gas emissions, greater degradation and erosion of soils, more conversion of natural habitats to agriculture, greater threats to biodiversity, and intensified competition for land and other resource inputs. Given the already substantial effects of agriculture on biodiversity and the environment, such a future is not sustainable.

The need for sustainable agriculture is becoming ever more significant. The world's population is still increasing, requiring more from our agricultural systems. Malnutrition and diet-related illnesses are present in nearly all societies. At the same time, agriculture plays a significant role in some of the biggest environmental challenges that humanity is facing, including the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, deforestation, and the pollution of our soil, water, and air. The need to balance the growing demand for nutritious food with these environmental threats is a complex issue, and ensuring sustainable food systems will require a collaborative effort from many different communities.

These issues were addressed during the US-UK Scientific Forum on Sustainable Agriculture held in Washington, DC, on March 5-6, 2020. Organized by the National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom's Royal Society, the forum brought together leading scientists, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners in agricultural sciences, food policy, biodiversity, and environmental science (among other specialties). The forum provided an opportunity for members of these research communities to build multidisciplinary and international collaborations that can inform solutions to a broad set of problems. This publication summarizes the presentations of the forum.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply

There are over two million farms in the United States, and more than half the nation’s land is used for agricultural production. 1 The number of farms has been slowly declining since the 1930s, 2 though the average farm size has remained about the same since the early 1970s. 3 Agriculture also extends beyond farms. It includes industries such as food service and food manufacturing.

Drought. Since early 2020, the U.S. Southwest has been experiencing one of the most severe long-term droughts of the past 1,200 years. Multiple seasons of record low precipitation and near-record high temperatures were the main triggers of the drought. 37

Wildfires. Some tribal communities are particularly vulnerable to wildfires due to their often-remote locations and lack of firefighting resources and staff. 38 In addition, because wildfire smoke can travel long distances from the source fire, its effects can be far reaching, especially for people with certain medical conditions or who spend long periods of time outside.

Decreased crop yields. Rising temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations may increase some crop yields, but the yields of major commodity crops (such as corn, rice, and oats) are expected to be lower than they would in a future without climate change. 39

Heat stress. Dairy cows are especially sensitive to heat stress, which can affect their appetite and milk production. In 2010, heat stress lowered annual U.S. dairy production by an estimated $1.2 billion. 40

Soil erosion. Heavy rainfalls can lead to more soil erosion, which is a major environmental threat to sustainable crop production. 41

Agriculture is very sensitive to weather and climate. 4 It also relies heavily on land, water, and other natural resources that climate affects. 5   While climate changes (such as in temperature, precipitation, and frost timing) could lengthen the growing season or allow different crops to be grown in some regions, 6 it will also make agricultural practices more difficult in others.

The effects of climate change on agriculture will depend on the rate and severity of the change, as well as the degree to which farmers and ranchers can adapt. 7 U.S. agriculture already has many practices in place to adapt to a changing climate, including crop rotation and integrated pest management . A good deal of research is also under way to help prepare for a changing climate.

Learn more about climate change and agriculture:

Top Climate Impacts on Agriculture

Agriculture and the economy, environmental justice and equity, what we can do, related resources, the link between agriculture and climate change.

Climate change can affect crops, livestock, soil and water resources, rural communities, and agricultural workers. However, the agriculture sector also emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that contribute to climate change. 

Read more about greenhouse gas emissions on the Basics of Climate Change  page.

Learn how the agriculture sector is reducing methane emissions from livestock waste through the AgSTAR program . For a more technical look at emissions from the agriculture sector, take a look at EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory chapter on agriculture activities in the United States . 

Climate change may affect agriculture at both local and regional scales. Key impacts are described in this section.

1. Changes in Agricultural Productivity 

Climate change can make conditions better or worse for growing crops in different regions. For example, changes in temperature, rainfall, and frost-free days are leading to longer growing seasons in almost every state. 8  A longer growing season can have both positive and negative impacts for raising food. Some farmers may be able to plant longer-maturing crops or more crop cycles altogether, while others may need to provide more irrigation over a longer, hotter growing season. Air pollution may also damage crops, plants, and forests. 9  For example, when plants absorb large amounts of ground-level ozone, they experience reduced photosynthesis, slower growth, and higher sensitivity to diseases. 10  

Climate change can also increase the threat of wildfires . Wildfires pose major risks to farmlands, grasslands, and rangelands. 11  Temperature and precipitation changes will also very likely expand the occurrence and range of insects, weeds, and diseases. 12  This could lead to a greater need for weed and pest control. 13  

Pollination is vital to more than 100 crops grown in the United States. 14  Warmer temperatures and changing precipitation can affect when plants bloom and when pollinators , such as bees and butterflies, come out. 15  If mismatches occur between when plants flower and when pollinators emerge, pollination could decrease. 16

2. Impacts to Soil and Water Resources

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of heavy precipitation in the United States, which can harm crops by eroding soil and depleting soil nutrients. 18  Heavy rains can also increase agricultural runoff into oceans, lakes, and streams. 19  This runoff can harm water quality. 

When coupled with warming water temperatures brought on by climate change, runoff can lead to depleted oxygen levels in water bodies. This is known as hypoxia . Hypoxia can kill fish and shellfish. It can also affect their ability to find food and habitat, which in turn could harm the coastal societies and economies that depend on those ecosystems. 20  

Sea level rise and storms also pose threats to coastal agricultural communities. These threats include erosion, agricultural land losses, and saltwater intrusion, which can contaminate water supplies. 21  Climate change is expected to worsen these threats. 22  

3. Health Challenges to Agricultural Workers and Livestock

Agricultural workers face several climate-related health risks. These include exposures to heat and other extreme weather, more pesticide exposure due to expanded pest presence, disease-carrying pests like mosquitos and ticks, and degraded air quality. 23  Language barriers, lack of health care access, and other factors can compound these risks. 24  Heat and humidity can also affect the health and productivity of animals raised for meat, milk, and eggs. 25   

For more specific examples of climate change impacts in your region, please see the National Climate Assessment .

Agriculture contributed more than $1.1 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product in 2019. 26  The sector accounts for 10.9 percent of total U.S. employment—more than 22 million jobs. 27  These include not only on-farm jobs, but also jobs in food service and other related industries. Food service makes up the largest share of these jobs at 13 million. 28  

Cattle, corn, dairy products, and soybeans are the top income-producing commodities . 29  The United States is also a key exporter of soybeans, other plant products, tree nuts, animal feeds, beef, and veal. 30

Many hired crop farmworkers are foreign-born people from Mexico and Central America. 31  Most hired crop farmworkers are not migrant workers; instead, they work at a single location within 75 miles of their homes. 32  Many hired farmworkers can be more at risk of climate health threats due to social factors, such as language barriers and health care access.

Climate change could affect food security for some households in the country. Most U.S. households are currently food secure . This means that all people in the household have enough food to live active, healthy lives. 33  However, 13.8 million U.S. households (about one-tenth of all U.S. households) were food insecure at least part of the time in 2020. 34  U.S. households with above-average food insecurity include those with an income below the poverty threshold, those headed by a single woman, and those with Black or Hispanic owners and lessees. 35

Climate change can also affect food security for some Indigenous peoples in Hawai'i and other U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands. Climate impacts like sea level rise and more intense storms can affect the production of crops like taro, breadfruit, and mango. 36 These crops are often key sources of nutrition and may also have cultural and economic importance.

We can reduce the impact of climate change on agriculture in many ways, including the following:

• Incorporate climate-smart farming methods. Farmers can use climate forecasting tools, plant cover crops, and take other steps to help manage climate-related production threats. 
• Join AgSTAR. Livestock producers can get help in recovering methane , a potent greenhouse gas, from biogas created when manure decomposes.
• Reduce runoff. Agricultural producers can strategically apply fertilizers, keep their animals out of streams, and take more actions to reduce nutrient-laden runoff. 
• Boost crop resistance. Adopt research-proven ways to reduce the impacts of climate change on crops and livestock , such as reducing pesticide use and improving pollination.
• Prevent food waste. Stretch your dollar and shrink your carbon footprint by planning  your shopping trips carefully and properly storing food . Donate nutritious, untouched food to food banks and those in need.

See additional actions you can take, as well as steps that companies can take, on EPA’s What You Can Do About Climate Change page.

Related Climate Indicators

Learn more about some of the key indicators of climate change related to this sector from EPA’s Climate Change Indicators :

• Seasonal Temperature
• Freeze-Thaw Conditions
• Length of Growing Season
• Growing Degree Days
• Fifth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 11: “Agriculture, Food Systems, and Rural Communities."
• National Agricultural Center . Provides agriculture-related news from all of EPA through a free email subscription service.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service . Produces research, information, and outlook products to enhance people’s understanding of agriculture and food issues. 
• USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program . Provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to address natural resource concerns.
• USDA Climate Hubs . Connects farmers, ranchers, and land managers with tools to help them adapt to climate change impacts in their area.
• USDA Rural Development . Promotes economic development in rural communities. Provides loans, grants, technical assistance, and education to agricultural producers and rural residents and organizations.
• National Integrated Drought Information System . Coordinates U.S. drought monitoring, forecasting, and planning through a multi-agency partnership. The U.S. Drought Monitor assesses droughts on a weekly basis.
• Sustainable Management of Food . Provides tools and resources for preventing and reducing wasted food and its associated impacts over the entire life cycle. 
• Resources, Waste, and Climate Change . Learn how reducing waste decreases our carbon footprint and what business, communities, and individuals can do.

1  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials. Farming and farm income . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

2  USDA, ERS. (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials. Farming and farm income . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

3  USDA, ERS. (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials. Farming and farm income . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

4  Walsh, M.K., et al. (2020). Climate indicators for agriculture . USDA Technical Bulletin 1953. Washington, DC, p. 1. 

5  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 393. 

6  Walsh, M.K., et al. (2020). Climate indicators for agriculture . USDA Technical Bulletin 1953. Washington, DC, p. 22. 

7  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 393.

8  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 401. 

9  Nolte, C.G., et al. (2018). Ch. 13: Air quality . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 513. 

10  EPA. (2022). Ecosystem effects of ozone pollution . Retrieved 3/18/2022. 

11  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 401.

12  Ziska, L., et al. (2016). Ch. 7: Food safety, nutrition, and distribution . In: The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 197.  

13  Ziska, L., et al. (2016). Ch. 7: Food safety, nutrition, and distribution . In: The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 197.  

14  USDA. Pollinators . Retrieved 3/18/2022. 

15  Walsh, M.K., et al. (2020). Climate indicators for agriculture . USDA Technical Bulletin 1953. Washington, DC, p. 20.

16  Walsh, M.K., et al. (2020). Climate indicators for agriculture . USDA Technical Bulletin 1953. Washington, DC, p. 40.

17  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 405.

18  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 409.

19  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 409.

20  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 405.

21  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 405.

22 Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 405.

23  Gamble, J.L., et al. (2016). Ch. 9: Populations of concern . In: The impacts of climate change on human health in the United States: A scientific assessment . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, pp. 247–286. 

24  Hernandez, T., and S. Gabbard. (2019). Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2015–2016: A demographic and employment profile of United States farmworkers . Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC, pp. 10–11 and pp. 40–45.  

25  Walsh, M. K., et al. (2020). Climate indicators for agriculture . USDA Technical Bulletin 1953. Washington, DC, p. 20. 

26  USDA, ERS. (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

27  USDA, ERS. (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

28  USDA, ERS. (2022). Ag and food statistics: Charting the essentials . Retrieved 3/18/2022.

29  USDA, ERS. (2022). Farm income and wealth statistics/cash receipts by commodity . Retrieved 3/18/2022. 

30  USDA, ERS. (2022). Farm income and wealth statistics/cash receipts by commodity . Retrieved 3/18/2022. 

31  USDA, ERS. (2020). Farm income and wealth statistics/cash receipts by state . Retrieved 5/11/2022.

32  USDA, ERS. (2020). Farm income and wealth statistics/cash receipts by state . Retrieved 5/11/2022.

33  USDA, ERS. (2020). Farm income and wealth statistics/cash receipts by state . Retrieved 5/11/2022.

34  Coleman-Jensen, A., et al. (2020). Household food security in the United States in 2020 , ERR-298, USDA, ERS, p. v. 

35  Coleman-Jensen, A., et al. (2020). Household food security in the United States in 2020 , ERR-298, USDA, ERS, p. v.

36  Keener, V., et al. (2018). Ch. 27: Hawai‘i and U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 1269. 

37  Mankin, J.S., et al. (2021). NOAA Drought Task Force report on the 2020–2021 southwestern U.S. drought. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Drought Task Force; NOAA Modeling, Analysis, Predictions and Projections Programs; and National Integrated Drought Information System, p 4. 

38  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 401.

39  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 409.

40  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 407.

41  Gowda, P., et al. (2018). Ch. 10: Agriculture and rural communities . In: Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, volume II . U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, p. 415.

• Climate Change Impacts Home
• Agriculture and Food Supply
• Air Quality
• Built Environment
• Freshwater Resources
• Ocean and Marine Resources
• Transportation
• Human Health
• State and Regional Impacts
• Climate Equity

What are the environmental impacts of food and agriculture?

Feeding the world whilst reducing food's impact on the environment is one of our greatest challenges in the coming decades. What are food's environmental impacts?

Food, energy and water: this is what the United Nations refers to as the ‘nexus’ of sustainable development. As the world’s population has expanded and gotten richer , the demand for all three has seen a rapid increase. Not only has demand for all three increased, but they are also strongly interlinked: food production requires water and energy ; traditional energy production demands water resources; agriculture provides a potential energy source.

Our latest series on Our World in Data focuses on the environmental impacts of food. Ensuring everyone in the world has access to a nutritious diet in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges we face. We cover the human aspects of food and nutrition in various entries, including hunger and undernourishment , micronutrient deficiency , food per person , diet compositions and obesity . In this series we focus more on the environmental consequences.

The visualization here shows a summary of some of the main global impacts:

• Food accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions 1 ;
• Half of the world’s habitable (ice- and desert-free) land is used for agriculture;
• 70% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture 2 ;
• 78% of global ocean and freshwater eutrophication (the pollution of waterways with nutrient-rich pollutants) is caused by agriculture 1 ;
• 94% of mammal biomass (excluding humans) is livestock. This means livestock outweigh wild mammals by a factor of 15-to-1. 3

Food, therefore, lies at the heart of trying to tackle climate change, reducing water stress, pollution, restoring lands back to forests or grasslands, and protecting the world’s wildlife.

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers . Science , 360(6392), 987-992.

FAO. (2011). The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing systems at risk . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations , Rome and Earthscan, London.

Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(25), 6506-6511.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

Essay on Sustainable Agriculture

Introduction: what is sustainable agriculture, importance of sustainable agriculture, population growth, per capita food consumption, sustainable agriculture and technology, green politics, conclusion of sustainable agriculture.

Bibliography

Sustainable agriculture has dominated the sociological understanding of the rural world largely. Following the enthusiasm around the concept as a means of eradication of poverty and turning the economy to a “resource-efficient, low carbon Green Economy” 1 . Global population, and consequently consumption has increased.

However, technology development has matched the demand for food in terms of food production, but the distribution of food is not evenly distributed. This has brought forth the question of the possibility of supplying adequate food to the ever-growing global population.

Further, the challenges posed by depleting non-renewable sources of energy, rising costs, and climate change has brought the issue related to sustainability of food production and the related social and economic impact of the food production into forefront. This paper outlines the meaning and technology related to sustainable agriculture and tries to gauge its impact as a possible solution to the impending food crisis.

Sustainable agriculture is a process of farming using eco-friendly methods understanding and maintaining the relationship between the organisms and environment. In this process of agriculture and animal husbandry are combined to form a simultaneous process and practice. In other words, sustainable agriculture is an amalgamation of three main elements viz. ecological health, profitability, and propagating equality.

The concept of sustainability rests on the principle of not wasting any resources that may become useful to the future generation. Therefore, the main idea of sustainability rests on stewardship of individual and natural resources. Before understanding the technology involved in sustainable agriculture, it is important to know why we need it in the first place.

The rise in population growth and urbanization of people has led to a dietary change of the world population, which now rests more on animal protein 2 . Therefore understanding the demographic changes in the world population has become an important parameter to judge the future demand for food.

As population growth rate is the key variable that affects the demand for food, therefore understanding the number of people increasing worldwide is important. According to the UNDP results, the annual population growth rate had declined from 2.2% in 1962 to 1.1% in 2010, however, this increase to indicate an increase of 75 million people 3 .

However, this increase in population is not equitably distributed as some areas such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia face a growth rate of 2% while others such as the erstwhile Soviet bloc countries have a negative rate.

According to the UNDP predictions, population worldwide is expected to increase to 9 billion in 2050 from the present 7 billion 4 . Therefore, the uncertain growth in population is expected to affect food demand and therefore food production.

Undernourishment is a prevalent problem in the developing world, wherein almost 20% of the developing world that is more than 5 billion people is undernourished.

Further, in emerging economies, food consumption is increasing with increased preference for animal protein such as meat, dairy products, and egg. Therefore, the growth of consumption of animal protein has increased the necessity of grazing of livestock, therefore, increasing further pressure on the food supply.

It is believed that the increase in the demand for food due to the increase in global population and change in dietary habit of the population. In the past, the demand for food and the rate of production has remained at par, but the unequal distribution of food has led to the major problem in food supply and starvation in various parts of the world.

Another problem that food production in the future faces is the constraint of non-renewable natural resources. The most critical resources, which are becoming scant for the future generations are –

• Land : Availability of land globally to cultivate food has grown marginally due to the increase in global population. The availability of land available per person to grow food has declined from 1.30 hectares in 1967 to 0.72 hectares in 2007 5 . Therefore, a clear dearth in agricultural land is a deterrent to future agriculture.
• Water : The world comprises of 70% freshwater resources, available from river and groundwater. Deficiency of freshwater has been growing as usage of water has increased more than twice the rate of population growth 6 . As water is required for irrigation purposes, water availability to is not equally distributed around the world. Therefore, reduced water supply would limit the per capita production of food.
• Energy : Globally, the scarcity of the non-renewable resources of energy is another concern. The global demand for energy is expected to double by 2050, consequently increasing energy prices 7 . Therefore, food production for the future will have to devise a technology based on renewable sources of energy.

The question of sustainability in agriculture arose due to some pressing issues that have limited the utilization of erstwhile processes and technologies for food production. However, it should be noted that sustainable agriculture does not prescribe any set rule or technology for the production process, rather shows a way towards sustainability 8 .

Sustainable agriculture uses best management practice by adhering to target-oriented cultivation. The agriculture process looks at disease-oriented hybrid, pest control through use of biological insecticides and low usage of chemical pesticide and fertilizer. Usually, insect-specific pest control is used, which is biological in nature.

Water given to the crops is through micro-sprinklers which help is directly watering the roots of the plants, and not flooding the field completely. The idea is to manage the agricultural land for both plants and animal husbandry.

For instance, in many southwestern parts of Florida’s citrus orchards, areas meant for water retention and forest areas become a natural habitat for birds and other animals 9 . The process uses integrated pest management that helps in reducing the amount of pesticide used in cultivation.

Sustainable agriculture adopts green technology as a means of reducing wastage of non-renewable energy and increase production. In this respect, the sustainable agricultural technology is linked to the overall developmental objective of the nation and is directly related to solving socio-economic problems of the nation 10 .

The UN report states, “The productivity increases in possible through environment-friendly and profitable technologies.” 11 In order to understand the technology better, one must realize that the soil’s health is crucial for cultivation of crops.

Soil is not just another ingredient for cultivation like pesticides or fertilizers; rather, it is a complex and fragile medium that must be nurtured to ensure higher productivity 12 . Therefore, the health of the soil can be maintained using eco-friendly methods:

Healthy soil, essential to agriculture, is a complex, living medium. The loose but coherent structure of good soil holds moisture and invites airflow. Ants (a) and earthworms (b) mix the soil naturally. Rhizobium bacteria (c) living in the root nodules of legumes (such as soybeans) create fixed nitrogen, an essential plant nutrient.

Other soil microorganisms, including fungi (d), actinomycetes (e) and bacteria (f), decompose organic matter, thereby releasing more nutrients. Microorganisms also produce substances that help soil particles adhere to one another. To remain healthy, soil must be fed organic materials such as various manures and crop residues. 13

This is nothing but a broader term to denote environment-friendly solutions to agricultural production. Therefore, the technology-related issue of sustainable agriculture is that it should use such technology that allows usage of renewable sources of energy and is not deterrent to the overall environment.

The politics around sustainable agriculture lies in the usage of the renewable sources of energy and disciplining of the current consumption rates 14 . The politics related to the sustainable agriculture is also related to the politics of sustainable consumption.

Though there is a growing concern over depleting food for the future and other resources, there is hardly any measure imposed by the governments of developed and emerging economies to sustain the consumption pattern of the population 15 .

The advocates of green politics believe that a radical change of the conventional agricultural process is required for bringing forth sustainable agriculture 16 . Green politics lobbies for an integrated farming system that can be the only way to usher in sustainable agricultural program 17 .

Sustainable agriculture is the way to maintain a parity between the increasing pressure of food demand and food production in the future. As population growth, change in income demographics, and food preference changes, there are changes in the demand of food of the future population.

Further, changes in climate and increasing concern regarding the depletion of non-renewable sources of energy has forced policymakers and scientists to device another way to sustain the available resources as well as continue meeting the increased demand of food.

Sustainable agriculture is the method through which these problems can be overlooked, bringing forth a new integrated form of agriculture that looks at food production in a holistic way.

Batie, S. S., ‘Sustainable Development: Challenges to Profession of Agricultural Economics’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 71, no. 5, 1989: 1083-1101.

Dobson, A., The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, Psychology Press, London, 1993.

Leaver, J. D., ‘Global food supply: a challenge for sustainable agriculture’, Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 36 , 2011: 416-421.

Martens, S., & G. Spaargaren, ‘The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the Netherlands’, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, vol.1 no. 1, 2005: 29-42.

Morris, C., & M. Winter, ‘Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture?’, Land Use Policy, vol. 16, no. 4, 1999: 193–205.

Reganold, J. P., R. I. Papendick, & J. F. Parr, ‘Sustainable Agriculture’, Scientific American , 1990: 112-120.

Townsend, C., ‘ Technology for Sustainable Agriculture. ‘ Florida Gulf Coast University, 1998. Web.

United Nations, ‘ Green technology for sustainable agriculture development ‘, United Nations Asian And Pacific Centre For Agricultural Engineering And Machinery, 2010. Web.

—, ‘ Sustainable agriculture key to green growth, poverty reduction – UN officials ‘, United Nations, 2011. Web.

1 United Nations, Sustainable agriculture key to green growth, poverty reduction – UN officials, UN News Centre, 2011.

2 J. D. Leaver, ‘Global food supply: a challenge for sustainable agriculture’, Nutrition Bulletin , vol. 36, 2011, pp. 416-421.

3 Leaver, p. 417.

5 Leaver, p. 418.

7 Leaver, p. 419.

8 J. N. Pretty, ‘Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture’, World Development , vol. 23, no. 8, 1995, pp. 1247-1263.

9 Chet Townsend, ‘Technology for Sustainable Agriculture’, Florida Gulf Coast University , 1998.

10 United Nations, ‘Green technology for sustainable agriculture development’, United Nations Asian And Pacific Centre For Agricultural Engineering And Machinery , 2010.

11 United Nations, p. 17.

12 J. P. Reganold, R. I. Papendick, & J. F. Parr, ‘Sustainable Agriculture’, Scientific American , 1990, pp. 112-120.

13 Regnold et al., p. 112.

14 S. S. Batie, ‘Sustainable Development: Challenges to Profession of Agricultural Economics’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 71, no. 5, 1989, pp. 1083-1101.

15 S. Martens & G. Spaargaren, ‘The politics of sustainable consumption: the case of the Netherlands’, Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy , vol.1 no. 1, 2005, pp. 29-42.

16 A. Dobson, The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory , Psychology Press, London, 1993, p. 82.

17 C .Morris & M. Winter, ‘Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture?’, Land Use Policy , vol. 16, no. 4, 1999, pp. 193–205.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Essay on Sustainable Agriculture. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/

"Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Essay on Sustainable Agriculture'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

IvyPanda . "Essay on Sustainable Agriculture." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sustainable-agriculture-essay/.

• Science and the Use of Non-Renewable Energy Resources
• The Benefits of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy
• Non-Renewable Energy and Gross Domestic Product of China
• Non-renewable Natural Sources
• The Renewable and Non-renewable Electricity Sources
• Energy Resource Plan - Physics
• Renewable Energy Sources
• Natural Resources, Their Classification and Impacts
• Smart Farming and Sustainable Agriculture
• Cannabis Technological Advancement in Cultivation
• Irrigation System Strategy
• Irrigation Systems in Farming
• Swidden Agriculture: Shift Farming
• Whaling in Japan: Justifiable by Culture?
• Essential Foods Price: Basics Foods and High Increase in Prices

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The environmental consequences of climate-driven agricultural frontiers

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation The Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Roles Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Arrell Food Institute and the Department of Geography, Environment and Geomatics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, United States of America

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Geography, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom

Roles Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Geography, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom

• Lee Hannah, 
• Patrick R. Roehrdanz, 
• Krishna Bahadur K. C., 
• Evan D. G. Fraser, 
• Camila I. Donatti, 
• Leonardo Saenz, 
• Timothy Max Wright, 
• Robert J. Hijmans, 
• Mark Mulligan, 

• Published: February 12, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305
• Reader Comments

8 Jul 2020: The PLOS ONE Staff (2020) Correction: The environmental consequences of climate-driven agricultural frontiers. PLOS ONE 15(7): e0236028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236028 View correction

Growing conditions for crops such as coffee and wine grapes are shifting to track climate change. Research on these crop responses has focused principally on impacts to food production impacts, but evidence is emerging that they may have serious environmental consequences as well. Recent research has documented potential environmental impacts of shifting cropping patterns, including impacts on water, wildlife, pollinator interaction, carbon storage and nature conservation, on national to global scales. Multiple crops will be moving in response to shifting climatic suitability, and the cumulative environmental effects of these multi-crop shifts at global scales is not known. Here we model for the first time multiple major global commodity crop suitability changes due to climate change, to estimate the impacts of new crop suitability on water, biodiversity and carbon storage. Areas that become newly suitable for one or more crops are Climate-driven Agricultural Frontiers. These frontiers cover an area equivalent to over 30% of the current agricultural land on the planet and have major potential impacts on biodiversity in tropical mountains, on water resources downstream and on carbon storage in high latitude lands. Frontier soils contain up to 177 Gt of C, which might be subject to release, which is the equivalent of over a century of current United States CO 2 emissions. Watersheds serving over 1.8 billion people would be impacted by the cultivation of the climate-driven frontiers. Frontiers intersect 19 global biodiversity hotspots and the habitat of 20% of all global restricted range birds. Sound planning and management of climate-driven agricultural frontiers can therefore help reduce globally significant impacts on people, ecosystems and the climate system.

Citation: Hannah L, Roehrdanz PR, K. C. KB, Fraser EDG, Donatti CI, Saenz L, et al. (2020) The environmental consequences of climate-driven agricultural frontiers. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0228305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305

Editor: Juan A. Añel, Universidade de Vigo, SPAIN

Received: January 29, 2019; Accepted: January 13, 2020; Published: February 12, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Hannah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are available on Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11633352 ).

Funding: The authors would like to thank the Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science at Conservation International for supporting portions of the research. This paper is also a contribution by the Food from Thought research program of the University of Guelph supported by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund.

Competing interests: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist".

Introduction

One of the key challenges facing the 21 st -century is producing enough food for the world’s growing population while not undermining the ecosystems on which we depend for life [ 1 ]. In particular, it is argued that the world needs to produce 70% more food by 2050 and if we fail to achieve this then there will be major social and economic impacts [ 2 – 4 ]. Proposed solutions to the global challenge of sustainably feeding the world’s population include consumer shifts towards more plant-based diets, reducing food waste, new technologies to boost yields, applying existing technology to close yield gaps, and expanding the amount of land currently under cultivation. Here we assess the extent to which climate change may create new opportunities to cultivate land in regions not currently cultivated as well as assessing the environmental implications of developing these so-called “agricultural frontiers.” In particular, climate change may stimulate large-scale geographic shifts in lands suitable for agricultural production, including the expansion of cultivation at the thermal and precipitation limits of crop tolerance [ 5 – 10 ]. Already climate change is creating new opportunities for farming to expansion in higher altitudes and latitudes that will enjoy longer growing seasons [ 7 , 11 – 12 ]. Unfortunately, the environmental consequences of these climate-driven agricultural frontiers are not fully appreciated [ 11 – 15 ].

Balancing cropland expansion, to feed the world’s growing population, with the protection of land to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services is a major global challenge [ 2 ]. Over the past 50 years, increases in food production have been dominated by growth in yields. Now, increasingly we are seeing expansion of agricultural lands through large-scale clearing [ 16 ]. 27% of global deforestation is directly attributable to large-scale clearing for commodity production, predominantly in the tropics [ 17 ].

In this paper, we define agricultural frontiers as areas not currently suitable for any major global commodity but that become suitable in the future due to climate change. While these areas present an opportunity for agricultural expansion, concern lays in the possibility of environmental degradation that may accompany development of frontiers. The expansion of agriculture into newly suitable regions may lead to environmental impacts not experienced under previous land uses, including impacts on biodiversity, water services and carbon storage [ 18 ]. Therefore, policies to optimize food production, biodiversity and ecosystem services under climate change are needed, especially since many past and present government policies have, intentionally and unintentionally, favored agricultural expansion.

While global crop models have repeatedly identified areas of new agricultural suitability that open due to climate change, analyses to date, for example using intersectoral impact models and earth system models, have not fully elaborated the environmental impacts specific to those areas [ 9 , 19 ]. One reason is that global models often combine many sectors and varying assumptions [ 20 ] and are run at a relatively coarse resolution that may not match the scale of environmental qualities of concern (e.g. watersheds, species ranges). In this study, we use simple but high-resolution crop suitability models to document possible water, carbon and biodiversity impacts associated with the potential cultivation of areas becoming suitable for agriculture for the first time. Through this analysis we aim to improve understanding of the potential implications of the expansion of agriculture into agricultural frontiers, to inform policies that balance optimized food production with the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Materials and methods

Climate data.

We identify climate-driven agricultural frontiers by using projections of 17 global climate models (GCM) for two levels of radiative forcing (Representative Concentration Pathways; RCPs 4.5 and 8.5) ( S1 Table ). S1 Fig presents a flowchart showing the details of GCMs and other data used and their analysis.

Current and future monthly climate grids were obtained from WorldClim Global Climate Data ( www.worldclim.org ). All data obtained was downscaled to 30 arc-second (approx. 1km) horizontal resolution following the methods of Hijmans et al. 2005 [ 21 ]. Variables available for download at this resolution and used in the simulations reported here were mean daily maximum temperature of each month (Tmax), mean daily minimum temperature of each month (Tmin), mean total precipitation of each month (Precip) and a suite of 19 bioclimatic variables [ S2 Table ]. Current climate represents the mean monthly climate over the period 1950–2000 whereas future climate projections cover 20-year averages over the periods 2040–2060 and 2060–2080.

Crop suitability models

Climatic suitability for twelve globally important crops is determined using three discrete modeling methods 1) EcoCrop; 2) Maxent; 3) frequency of daily critical maximum and minimum temperatures. The list of crops is listed in Table 1 and parameters used is depicted in S3 Table .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.t001

EcoCrop is a generalized physiological model of crop suitability based on known ranges of optimal temperature and precipitation as well as climatic limits where production of that crop would be impossible [ 22 , 23 ]. Parameters for optimal temperature and precipitation are available from the EcoCrop database maintained by the FAO [ 24 ].

Maximum entropy (Maxent) is widely used in modeling species distributions under climate change and increasingly applied to domesticated crop species [ 25 ]. Crop occurrence points were generated from spatially weighted random points representing the agreement of four discrete gridded crop databases ( S4 Table ). One thousand points were generated for each crop, with a greater percentage of the distribution given where there is greater agreement among the four databases. Ten variables were selected by hierarchical clustering to create the Maxent model for each crop. For each crop, all 19 bioclimatic variables were sampled at the crop observation points. Variables were standardized then partitioned into clusters using hclust() base R function. The resulting cluster dendrogram was partitioned into 10 clusters using cutree() base R function where k = 10. The first variable was selected from each of the resulting 10 groups. See S2 and S5 Tables for a description of the bioclimatic variables used. For all models, 30% of the occurrence points were reserved to test and validate the model. Model performance (AUC), logistic threshold and top four most important variables for each crop are shown in S6 Table .

Critical maximum and minimum temperatures critical to crop success [ 26 ] were modeled with gridded global daily observations for maximum and minimum air temperature were obtained from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Twentieth Century Reanalysis Version 2: 4-times daily and daily average monolevel dataset [ 27 ] at 2° x 2° resolution.

Global daily observation grids (2° x 2°) were summarized by month to create a count of days where temperature exceeded each integer degree in the range -50C to +50C. Temperatures were rounded to the nearest degree C and summarized in one-degree intervals. Counts of temperature exceedances were generated over a 20-year period (1980–2000) and resampled to 30 arc seconds (see S7 Table ). Binary suitable vs. not-suitable grids were then created by thresholding the critical temperature counts at 20% of all days within the relevant month over the 20-year period using a cropping calendar dataset [ 28 ].

Agricultural frontier ensemble

Suitability for each crop was determined for current climate and in each of 34 future scenarios (17 GCM, 2 radiative forcing) as the agreement of the three suitability methods (EcoCrop, Maxent, Critical temperatures). Frontiers are defined as areas that transition from zero crops suitable in current climate to one or more crops suitable in the future climate scenario. Additionally, we mapped frontiers that transition from one crop suitable in current climate to two or more crops suitable in the future climate scenario. Validation statistics as measured by Dice-Sorenson spatial congruence for all crop models are shown in S8 Table .

Water quality impacts

The analysis was implemented in a hydrological model, WaterWorld version 2, globally at 10km spatial resolution [ 29 ]. To calculate the population within the new agricultural areas, who may experience water quality declines, we sum the Landscan global population dataset 2011 [ 30 ] over the area of new agriculture. The WaterWorld hydrological footprint (HF) [ 29 – 31 ] is a measure of the influence of an area on downstream water and is calculated by cumulating a global water balance calculated by the WaterWorld model [ 31 ], along a HydroSHEDS [ 32 ] based flow network. The hydrological footprint at a point along this network is defined as the contribution of an upstream area (such as a new agricultural area) to flow of water at this point. We calculate the Agricultural Water Quality (AWQ) index as the land area affected by hydrological footprint >0% and >50% as proxies for all contamination and for significant contamination respectively. Further, we calculate the population affected by this hydrological footprint as the sum of Landscan 2011 [ 30 ] people in pixels with a hydrological footprint of the new agricultural areas >0% and >50%. We use a global database of 38,000 dams [ 33 ] to identify which lie on rivers with a hydrological footprint>0 as a surrogate for agricultural, hydropower and urban water supplies potentially affected by this new agricultural land. Footprints are calculated for the current distribution of cropland fractional cover [ 34 ], the current distribution of land suitable for cropland and each ensemble member of the frontiers. We used a “difference method” where the number of people affected is a function of the agricultural water footprint of current farming systems, minus the agricultural water footprint of future farming practices. We use this difference to calculate the fraction of water, at any point in the hydrological network, that fell as rain on particular land uses upstream and thus is likely to be contaminated by new cropland.

Soil organic carbon impacts

To account for soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural frontiers, we obtained a gridded global dataset of estimated soil organic carbon (tonnes ha -1 ) in the top 100 cm [ 35 ]. Individual projections of agricultural frontiers were resampled to match the native resolution of the dataset and used to extract the soil carbon values for areas within the frontier. Total tonnage of soil carbon was then summed for each resulting grid. To assess the total emissions resulting from conversion from natural land cover to agriculture, we employed land cover-specific emissions rates based on several meta analyses [ 36 – 38 ] as well as IPCC best practices guidelines for carbon accounting under land use change [ 39 ]. To account for differential emissions assumptions by land class, the areas in agricultural frontiers were categorized according to existing land cover in the global land cover facility (GLCF) dataset [ 40 – 41 ].

Biodiversity impacts

Biodiversity hotspots [ 42 ], endemic bird areas (EBA) [ 43 ], and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) [ 44 – 45 ] were assessed for overlap with agricultural frontiers, as were present and future ranges of global restricted-range bird species. Hotspots, EBA and KBA polygons were converted to raster. Occurrence data and range maps for global restricted range bird species were obtained from Birdlife International [ 46 ]. Only species whose observed area of occupancy was within 100 km of a frontier and with >10 occurrence points were modeled. Maxent models were generated for all selected species for baseline climate and in all future climate scenarios for the 17 GCMs at 2.5 arc-minute resolution. Predictor variables used were mean annual temperature, mean diurnal range, temperature seasonality, minimum temperature of coldest month, annual precipitation and precipitation seasonality. Binary maps for each model were created using the maximum sensitivity plus specificity logistic threshold. The resulting binary grids were used to evaluate species range overlap with agricultural frontiers in current climate and in all future climate scenarios.

Extent of climate-driven agricultural frontiers

Climate-driven agricultural frontiers as defined here cover between 10.3–24.1 million km 2 of the planet’s surface, with an ensemble median value of 15.1 million km 2 under RCP 8.5 by 2060–2080 ( Fig 1 , S2 Fig ). Crops that comprise the frontiers are shown in supplementary S3 and S4 Figs and are primarily more cold tolerant temperate crops such as potatoes, wheat, maize, soy. To put the magnitude of these agricultural frontiers in perspective, the ensemble median area of agricultural frontiers under this late century, RCP 8.5 scenario is equivalent to 59% of current global cultivated and managed vegetation land area, while the ensemble maximum area is equivalent to 93% of current cultivation. Under a RCP 4.5 scenario, with more muted radiative forcing, agricultural frontiers are found to cover 8.1–20.0 million km2 of the earth’s surface (equivalent to 31–77% of currently cultivated area (see S2 Fig )). Soil quality, terrain and infrastructure, however, will be major determinants of which of these frontiers will actually be cultivated and as such, the results presented here represent an upper bound estimate of where cropland expansion may be expected.

Areas that transition from no current suitability for major commodity crops to suitability for one or more crops are depicted in blue, while currently uncultivated areas that transition to suitability for multiple major commodity crops are shown in red. Intensity of color indicates the level of agreement between simulations driven by different GCMs for the RCP 8.5 radiative concentration pathway. Terrestrial areas in white are either currently suitable for at least one modeled crop or, not suitable for any modeled crops in the projected climatic conditions. Suitability under current and projected climates is defined as universal agreement of suitability methods (EcoCrop, Maxent, Frequency of Extreme Temperatures).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.g001

Geographic distribution of climate-driven agricultural frontiers

Frontiers are projected to be most extensive in the boreal regions of the Northern Hemisphere and in mountainous areas worldwide, since areas suitable for commodity production generally expand upslope and towards the poles in response to rising temperatures. Potatoes, wheat and maize make the largest contributions to frontier land surface ( S4 Fig ). Canada (4.2 million km 2 ) and Russia (4.3 million km 2 ) harbor the greatest area of agricultural frontier (RCP 8.5, ensemble median). Among montane regions, the Mountains of Central Asia and the Rocky Mountains of USA and Canada have the greatest frontier area (0.1 and 0.9 million km 2 , respectively). Frontiers on the fringes of Australian and African deserts are the result of projected increases in precipitation, for which there is relatively low GCM agreement, including divergent trends in sign of precipitation change among GCMs. This makes conclusions about potential for agricultural expansion in these areas highly uncertain. In contrast, there will be a small loss of existing crop area. We estimated that about 0.2% of existing crop area will become unsuitable for all modelled crops without irrigation or other intensive inputs for RCP 8.5 2060–2080 scenario.

Environmental impacts of climate-driven agricultural frontiers

Environmental impacts from climate-related agricultural land use change include impacts on climate services (e.g., reduction in carbon storage), the effects of agricultural pollution on downstream areas, and degradation of natural habitats with attendant loss of biodiversity [ 47 – 52 ]. The most significant impact is likely reduction in climate services provided by carbon storage in frontiers soils, particularly in the extensive high latitude frontiers.

Climate services impact

The total amount of carbon that resides in the top 1 m of soil under agricultural frontiers has a median value of 632 GtC (gigatons of carbon) (RCP 8.5, ensemble) and 539 GtC (RCP 4.5, ensemble), with a minimum RCP 8.5 ensemble value of 400 and a maximum value of 991 GtC ( Table 2 ). This is equivalent to 47–116% of all carbon currently in the Earth’s atmosphere ( Fig 2 ). Release of carbon from high latitude soils due to warming is already of major concern but may be small relative to the amounts of carbon that might be released if these areas come under cultivation [ 53 ].

Areas with >50% GCM agreement commodity frontiers are shown. Existing agricultural land cover >10% of each pixel is represented in light brown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.g002

Rows with grey shading apply GAEZ general soil suitability constraints and soil requirements for each crop to the climatically suitable frontier areas.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.t002

The release of carbon following tilling from previously untilled soils is believed to occur rapidly and estimates suggest that 25–40% of total soil carbon is released within five years of plowing [ 54 ]. Therefore, an upper bound estimate of the total amount of carbon that might be released from the cultivation of climate-driven frontiers would be on the order of 177 GtC, which is equivalent to 119 years of current CO 2 emissions of the United States [ 55 ]. The actual area affected would be smaller than the frontier due to economic and physical factors, but emissions might be greater because many of the potentially affected soils are peat, which may degrade when disturbed, releasing more and deeper carbon. In either event, the magnitude of the potential release indicates that policies directed at constraining development of these areas are vitally important. From a global perspective, 177 GtC is more than two-thirds of the 263 GtC within which total future emissions must be constrained to limit global mean temperature increase to the internationally agreed Paris agreement target of 2°C global mean temperature increase above pre-industrial levels [ 56 ].

One way to address the challenge posed by cultivation of frontiers is through promoting agricultural management practices that conserve soil-bound carbon. In particular, policies that incentivize leaving peat soils intact and promoting conservation tillage could significantly reduce the quantity of carbon released and slow the speed at which it is released [ 57 – 58 ]. Thus, while specific estimates as to the speed or extent to which these carbon sources might affect the atmosphere is beyond the scope of this study, it is highly likely that developing such regions for agriculture will have significant impacts on greenhouse gas emissions that need to be balanced against the benefits of increased food supply and constrained by sound environmental policies.

The biodiversity impacts of the climate-driven frontiers occur where the frontiers intersect with important ecosystems and habitats ( Table 3 ). Among global priorities for biodiversity conservation, 56% of global biodiversity hotspots, 22% of Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs) and 13% of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) intersect with climate-driven agricultural frontiers (ensemble median RCP8.5 2060–2080; see Table 3 ). Biodiversity hotspots that have the largest intersection with frontiers are the Tropical Andes, the Mountains of Central Asia, the Horn of Africa and the Chilean Winter Rainfall and Valdivian Forests.

Areas of significant biodiversity resources assessed are biodiversity hotspots; endemic bird areas (EBA); key biodiversity areas (KBA). Numbers presented for biodiversity resources are the median [range] number of areas that intersection with frontiers across all GCMs. Potential impacts on restricted range bird species are presented as the median [range] number of species with modeled range intersection with frontiers in current and 2060–80 climate projection. Modeled future ranges are assessed under an assumption of no-dispersal and a 10 km/decade dispersal rate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.t003

Species’ ranges may move in response to climate change, causing changes in patterns of biodiversity, at the same time as frontiers are opening. To test the effect of frontiers on future, as well as present, patterns of biodiversity, the ranges of all global restricted range birds, a set of high conservation priority species found in hotspots, KBAs and EBAs, were modelled [ 59 ]. These results show that the number of restricted range birds impacted by frontiers increases in the future from 409 species to 491 species under RCP8.5 representing 20% of the 2,451 global restricted range bird species and 409 to 362 under RCP4.5 ( Table 3 ). Thus, range shifts due to climate change accentuate the intersection of frontiers with suitable climate for rare species, as both crop suitability and suitable climate for species move upslope. However, this effect depends on species’ ability to occupy newly suitable areas. Species potentially impacted by frontiers are most numerous in Central America and the Northern Andes, with secondary concentrations in the Himalayas and highlands of New Guinea.

The potential impact of climate-driven agricultural frontiers on downstream water quality has may affect large numbers of people and their water infrastructure. The agricultural water quality (AWQ) footprint of frontiers encompasses the homes of between 0.4–1.0 billion people (RCP 4.5, ensemble minimum and maximum) and 1.2–1.8 billion people (RCP 8.5, ensemble minimum and maximum), of whom 900 million-1.6 billion (RCP 8.5, ensemble minimum and maximum) live in areas in which more than half of the water supply is projected to be impacted ( Table 4 ). Water quality changes in these downstream areas from fertilizer and biocide runoff may affect human health, ecosystem health, production of fisheries and the cost of water treatment.

Elevated AWQ is >50% of water supply with AWQ impacts.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.t004

Table 4 shows that agricultural frontiers increase the amount of land potentially affected by changes in AWQ 9% to 16% (median 12%) compared to current impact (RCP 8.5, ensemble minimum and maximum). Given that some of this new farmland (in drylands) will not generate significant runoff, under RCP 8.5 the land area with AWQ varies from a maximum additional 7–12% (median 9%) with the maximum additional global population affected varying from 9–10% (median 9%). Elevated levels of AWQ (>50%), affecting 3–6% of additional land surface (median 4%), impacting an additional 2–3% (median 2%) of the current global population. The additional AWQ per unit land area of new cropland varies between ensemble members and reflects the distribution of cropland in runoff generating areas vs not, as well as the downstream differential mixing of runoff from agricultural and non-agricultural land under different spatial frontier outcomes.

Hydrologic infrastructure, including the global estate of reservoirs created by dams that are essential for urban water supply, irrigation and hydropower are also potentially affected by the AWQ footprint of agricultural frontiers. 6.4–8% (median 7.3%, RCP8.5) or 5.5–6.9% (median 6.3% RCP4.5) of global reservoirs would experience increased AWQ impacts as a result of agricultural frontiers and 2.0–3.8% (median 2.9%, RCP 8.5) or 1.7–3.1% (median 2.4% RCP4.5) of reservoirs would be exposed to elevated impacts (AWQ >50%). These are in addition to the 63.3% of reservoirs already with AWQ>0 under the current distribution of crop suitability (50.2% at >50% AWQ) ( Table 4 ).

Uncertainty

To account for the uncertainty of future climate projections, all impacts of climate driven agricultural frontiers were assessed on an individual GCM/RCP/time period basis and results are presented as ensembles across all climate projections. The choice of binary threshold is a possible source of uncertainty, but in this analysis that uncertainty is constrained by choosing a threshold that is conservative from the perspective of frontiers. For instance, in EcoCrop a threshold of 20 (“very marginal to marginal”) includes areas that are possible but not optimal for cultivation [ 22 – 23 ]. The total area of frontiers is largely insensitive to adjustments to the choice of threshold across all methods used, because under a more permissive threshold the currently suitable area will expand, but there will be an accompanying expansion of frontiers poleward—and vice versa for a less permissive threshold. Uncertainty is more difficult to constrain in precipitation-driven frontiers where there is high disagreement on sign of change in GCMs. This makes Sahelian and Australian precipitation-driven frontiers much more uncertain than other frontiers, as noted above. The greatest uncertainty is in actual cultivation of frontiers, as discussed below. Comparison of the modeled crop distributions for both current and future climates including the possible reduction of frontier areas due to soil constraints as defined by the union of GAEZ soil resource classifications are shown in S5 – S8 Figs.

This paper has three specific implications as well as raising some broader scale issues that need to be reflected on. In terms of the specific implications, we note that while climate change is creating new opportunities for agriculture, especially in northern latitudes, results presented here show huge potential environmental trade-offs. The first potential impact relates to the release of soil organic carbon into the atmosphere. As shown in the results section of this paper, if agriculture is allowed to extend into all of the frontiers identified here, then there would be little chance of reaching the Paris climate accord’s goals of keeping climate change to within 1.5°C above preindustrial levels [ 60 ]. A second implication relates to biodiversity. The results of this paper suggest that if all of the frontiers are converted into agricultural uses, the world will lose important biodiversity hotspots in both mountainous and northern regions. This will accentuate the negative impact of what some scholars describe as “the Anthropocene” [ 61 ]. This paper shows that a third implication of developing all of these agricultural frontiers would be significant problems of water degradation that could affect the health and well-being of millions of people.

With that said, it is important to acknowledge that the analysis presented here does not assess economic incentives and constraints on frontier development, nor does it simulate the probability that individual areas would be cultivated. Consequently, the carbon, water and biodiversity impacts described here are all “upper bound” estimates and in some ways represent worst case scenarios. However, the magnitude of impacts identified, and the potential for very significant feedbacks in terms of environmental problems (such as cultivating the Northern frontier leading to increased carbon emissions leading to more rapid climate change), should trigger concern. In this way, the results presented here should be seen alongside literature on biogeophysical “tipping cascades” that could push the Earth System across a planetary threshold to a ‘Hothouse Earth’ pathway [ 61 ]. We have identified climate-driven agricultural frontiers as a coupled natural-human tipping cascade that might have similar self-reinforcing tendencies. In lieu of more detailed analyses, there are several reasons to believe that frontier development, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere high latitude frontiers, is of both global and regional policy significance.

Standing aside from these ecological issues, these results also have implications for society and mean that this analysis makes a contribution to the broad area of sustainability science and the emerging literature on planetary boundaries and planetary health [ 62 – 63 ]. In particular, there are serious social issues that would need to be considered that fall outside of the scope of this paper. A great many First Nations communities call these areas home and have ancestral claims many of which are unseeded. The development of any agricultural “frontier” would, therefore, need to be done fully cognizant of the fact that Indigenous Communities must be at the forefront of any development plans and must be the primary beneficiaries. Any such developments, therefore, must take into account a number of the following.

First, humanity has a history of cultivating land that was once deemed unlikely to ever justify cultivation–and this has created massive sustainability problems. For example, a combination of policies and technology created conditions that led to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s in North America [ 64 ]; or that 60 years ago resulted in the beginning of the degradation of the Aral Sea and the pollution of its waters, with knock-on effects on the very same ability of lands to sustain agricultural productivity [ 65 ]. Similarly, 50 years ago, no one seriously thought that people would ever turn large areas of the Brazilian Cerrado and Amazon into soy fields or large areas of Southeast Asian peat into oil palm plantation. In particular, the fragile tropical soils were deemed unsuitable and the areas were considered too remote. Yet land use conversion happened in a very short period of time driven by rising demand and low land prices. Arguing by analogy, it seems plausible that we should be prepared for a similar economic logic to be applied to the global North. For instance, policies such as China’s “Belt and Road” initiative, are likely to provide significant subsidies to frontier development. Adding environmental policies within such programs could help reduce the impacts associated with frontier development, for instance by promoting non-agricultural industries and supporting low carbon forms of land use.

Second, we have evidence that populations are already looking north for food producing opportunities. For example, the government of the Northwest Territories in Canada recently created a new agricultural strategy that promotes development of northern lands [ 66 ]. Similarly, Russia has policies promoting homesteading in Siberia that will attract more settlers as warming continues, while China and Korea have both leased land in Siberia for agriculture even under current climatic limitations [ 67 – 68 ].

Third, there is technology change. New genetically modified crops, including quick maturing soybeans, and new management practices, such as precision agriculture, are giving farmers the ability to plant in environments that once would have been considered extreme. As a result, the frontier for soybeans in North America has been moving west and north for years. It is important to bear in mind that, therefore, today it seems that the Northern agricultural frontier is at a moment in history similar to just before Brazil started investing in soy production [ 69 – 70 ].

Finally, population growth and the expansion of biofuels may have outsized impacts on land use. Biofuel use is strongly influenced by national and regional (e.g., EU) policies, which can change. Policy change could drastically increase land requirements for biofuel production, as it has done in Brazil. It is important to recognize the land use consequences, such as in agricultural frontiers, of such policies. Global population growth estimates diverge strongly after 2050. After 2050, global population estimates range from decline to just over 7 billion people (low-variant) to more than doubling to over 16 billion people (high-variant) [ 71 ]. The upper-range population endpoints, while less likely, would result in very different demand drivers for new agricultural production in our end-century scenarios. The environmental consequences of frontier development are one of many reasons we should be concerned about which of these trajectories the planet will follow.

The distribution of both the benefits and the impacts of frontier development will further complicate achievement of the targets set by the sustainable development goals [ 72 – 73 ]. In particular, although developing the Northern frontiers might help reduce poverty and hunger both through the economic activities as well as the food produced in these areas, developing such frontiers might have a detrimental effect on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (13 climate action 14 life in water and 15 life on land). Further development imbalances may be created by distributional effects caused by the development of the frontiers. Namely, it must be noted that two countries–Canada and Russia–contain 56% of the global frontier area. Frontier cultivation may have significant economic, food security and trade benefits for these countries, providing significant incentives favoring development. However, the likely environmental cost, especially related to climate change, will be felt internationally, with disproportionate impact on poor nations [ 74 – 75 ].

Overall, therefore, climate-driven agricultural frontiers pose a major challenge for international environmental policy. In particular, changing crop suitability in the frontiers is likely to be a gradual, but sustained, source of new greenhouse gas emissions that may make it difficult for some countries to make progressive reductions toward Paris Agreement targets.

In summary, our research shows that climate change presents serious opportunities for food production in areas that, until now, have been relatively undeveloped. This suggests opportunities for economic development that, if done properly, may reduce poverty and food insecurity in some economically marginal parts of the world, such as northern Canada, where a lack of economic opportunities has created epidemic levels of food insecurity. With that said, it is important to recognize that food insecurity in remote communities is rarely a function of food production alone and is more often associated with a complex legacy of colonialism, education, and socio-cultural disconnects.

There are serious negative environmental impacts associated with the unfettered development of climate-driven agricultural frontiers. Recognizing that climate-driven agricultural frontiers are a potential source of new greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts including a loss of biodiversity and a loss of water quality for hundreds of millions of people highlights the need for national and international policy to guide sustainable development in the frontiers. The development of such policies should engage with Indigenous Communities and other local stakeholders to establish participatory processes that would ensure that economic development plans are led locally and that local communities are the primary beneficiaries of any land use change. Together, therefore, using participatory methodologies, local governance and frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals, it should be possible to help countries realize the potential benefits associated with a changing environment without causing major further environmental problems.

Supporting information

S1 table. list of gcms used to drive future climate projections..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s001

S2 Table. Definition of bioclimatic variables used in maxent models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s002

S3 Table. List of crops modeled and ecocrop parameters used.

KTmp = Killing Temperature (°C); Tn = Absolute Minimum Temp (°C); TnOp = Minimum Optimal Temp (°C); Tx = Absolute Maximum Temp (°C); TxOp = Maximum Optimal Temp (°C); Pn = Absolute Minimum Precip (mm); PnOp = Minimum Optimal Precip (mm); Px = Absolute Maximum Precip (mm); PxOp = Maximum Optimal Precip (mm); Gseas = Growing Season Duration (days).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s003

S4 Table. Gridded datasets used to derive occurrence points for each crop.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s004

S5 Table. Bioclimatic variables used to create the maxent model for each crop.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s005

S6 Table. Summary of model performance (AUC), logistic threshold used to create binary distributions (Threshold) and the four most important variables for each crop (Var 1–4).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s006

S7 Table. Critical maximum and minimum temperatures for each crop.

Critical temperature thresholds used are in bold. Critical temperature values were obtained from references [ 76 – 90 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s007

S8 Table. Dice-Sorenson spatial congruence for ecocrop, maxent, and combined model with extreme temperature masks.

Dice-Sorenson measures the spatial overlap with the formula 2a/2a+b+c where a = cells in common and b + c = cells in disagreement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s008

S1 Fig. Flowchart showing the input data, modeling methods, frontier determination and impact analysis.

Sources for data are indicated by reference number.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s009

S2 Fig. Global map of climate-driven agricultural frontiers.

Blue color ramp shows transition from zero currently suitable commodity crops to one or more suitable commodities. Red color ramp shows transition from one suitable commodity to two or more suitable commodities. Intensity of color denotes level of GCM agreement for the RCP8.5 2040–2060 climate scenario. Areas in grey are either currently suitable for two or more commodities or not suitable for any commodities in the projected climate.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s010

S3 Fig. GCM agreement (green = low; blue = high) of modeled frontiers for individual commodity crops for RCP 8.5 2060–2080.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s011

S4 Fig. Distribution across 17 GCMs of total area (million km 2 ) in commodity frontiers for each modeled crop under RCP8.5 2060–2080 climate projections.

Boxes are interquartile range; whiskers extend to 1.5 times interquartile range; outliers indicated by points.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s012

S5 Fig. Comparison of modeled agricultural frontiers with areas of very severe soil constraints (green).

Soil constraints were defined as the union of GAEZ soil resource classifications and crop specific limitations of pH and soil depth. Areas in green were used to reduce total frontier impact on soil carbon in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s013

S6 Fig. Comparison of agricultural frontiers of this paper (blue and red) vs. MAGPIE RCP SSP-5 [ 91 ] cropland in 2070 (green).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s014

S7 Fig. Comparison of modeled wheat suitability in available GAEZ gridded datasets (blue—Top panel) and this paper (red—Bottom panel).

An exact match for GCM, scenario and time step was not available, but shows general spatial congruence of the modeling methods for late-century, high emissions scenarios. Existing agriculture is represented in grey for both panels.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s015

S8 Fig. Comparison of existing cultivated land (green) with modeled current suitability (purple) and soil constraints (black overlay).

Areas of visible purple are where the universal agreement among three models indicates that it is currently suitable for at least one modeled commodity crop but is not currently cultivated. The pole ward edges of the extent of modeled vs. realized agriculture are in good agreement, with modeled agriculture extending further than existing continuous agriculture. Quantification of frontiers and their potential impacts presented here are therefore conservative.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228305.s016

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 23. Hijmans RJ, Guarino L, Jarvis A, O’Brien R, Mathur P, Bussink C, et al. DIVA-GIS: Version 5.2 Manual. DIVA-GIS. 2005.
• 24. FAO Ecocrop Data Portal. http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/home
• 27. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Twentieth Century Reanalysis Version 2: 4-times daily and daily average monolevel [dataset]. 2016.
• 30. LandScan 2011 high resolution global population data set copyrighted by UT-Battelle, LLC, operator of Oak Ridge National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the United States Department of Energy. 2011.
• 31. Mulligan M. The human water quality footprint: agricultural, industrial, and urban impacts on the quality of available water globally and in the Andean region. Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Water Resource Management and Climate Change. Cali, CO; 2009. p. 11.
• 33. Mulligan M, Saenz-Cruz L, van Soesbergen A, Smith VT, Zurita L. Global dams database and geowiki version 1 [Internet]. 2009b. http://geodata.policysupport.org/dams .
• 39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Final report. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IPCC). 2003. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.html
• 40. Channan S, Collins K, Emanuel WR. Global mosaics of the standard MODIS land cover type data [dataset]. College Park (MD): University of Maryland and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 2014. http://glcf.umd.edu/data/lc/
• 41. Friedl MA, Sulla-Menashe D, Tan B, Schneider A, Ramankutty N, Sibley, A, et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets, 2001–2012, Collection 5.1 IGBP Land Cover [dataset] Boston (MA): Boston University; 2010. http://glcf.umd.edu/data/lc/
• 42. Mittermeier RA, Robles-Gil P, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim JD, Brooks TB, Mittermeier C, et al. Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX; 2004. 390 p.
• 44. IUCN. Consolidating the standards for identifying sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity: the results of a framing workshop. Cambridge (UK): Species Survival Commission Joint Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. 2012 June.
• 45. Langhammer PF, Bakarr MI, Bennun LA, Brooks TM, Clay RP, Darwall W, et al. Identification and gap analysis of key biodiversity areas: targets for comprehensive protected area systems. 2007. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
• 46. Endemic bird special data. 2016. Birdlife International.
• 55. Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel co2 emissions [dataset]. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 2016.
• 56. Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Internet]. Geneva (CH): IPCC; 2014.
• 59. Stattersfield AJ, Crosby MJ, Long AJ,Wege DC. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation [Internet]. Cambridge: Birdlife International; 1998. http://datazone.birdlife.org/info/pubEBAs
• 65. Pearce F. When the rivers run dry: water—the defining crisis of the twenty-first century. Beacon Press. 2007, Boston, MA, United States, 324 pp.
• 66. Government of Northwest Territories. The business of food: a food production plan 2017–2022. Northwest Territories Agriculture Strategy. Government of Northwest Territories Canada. 2017. https://www.iti.gov.nt.ca/sites/iti/files/agriculture_strategy.pdf
• 67. Russia Today. Land grant: Govt drafts bill for ‘1-hectare per Russian’ in Far East. 2015. www.rt.com/politics/322404-government-drafts-bill-on-free . Accessed 24 Sept 2018
• 68. BBC News. Chinese firm to rent Russian land in Siberia for crops. 2015. www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33196396 . Accessed 24 Sept 2018
• 71. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables (2017). ST/ESA/SER.A/399.
• 72. UN General Assembly. Sustainable development goals (SDGs), transforming our world: the, 2030. United Nations. New York. 2015.
• 77. Bakker M. Sugarcane cultivation and management, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 1999; New York, USA.
• 82. Ong CK. Agrometeorology of Groundnut: Proceedings of an International Symposium. 21–26 Aug 1985, ICRISAT Sahelian Center, Niamey, Niger.P atancheru. A.P. 502 324, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 1986; 115–125.
• 90. IIASA/FAO. Global Agro‐ecological Zones (GAEZ v3.0). 2012. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria and FAO, Rome, Italy.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Plants (Basel)

Impacts of Agriculture on the Environment and Soil Microbial Biodiversity

Adoración barros-rodríguez.

1 Department of Microbiology, Institute for Water Research, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; se.rgu@sorrabyrod

Pharada Rangseekaew

2 Doctor of Philosophy Program in Applied Microbiology (International Program), Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand; [email protected]

3 Graduate School, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand

Krisana Lasudee

4 Research Center of Excellence in Bioresources for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand; moc.liamg@abanasirk (K.L.); moc.liamg@397512usaw (W.P.-a.)

Wasu Pathom-aree

Maximino manzanera, associated data.

Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Agriculture represents an important mechanism in terms of reducing plant, animal, and microbial biodiversity and altering the environment. The pressure to cope with the increasing food demands of the human population has intensified the environmental impact, and alternative ways to produce food are required in order to minimize the decrease in biodiversity. Conventional agricultural practices, such as floods and irrigation systems; the removal of undesired vegetation by fires, tilling, and plowing; the use of herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides; and the intensification of these practices over the last 50 years, have led to one of the most important environmental threats—a major loss of biodiversity. In this study, we review the impact that agriculture and its intensification have had on the environment and biodiversity since its invention. Moreover, we demonstrate how these impacts could be reduced through the use of microorganisms as biostimulants.

1. Introduction

Since the appearance of human beings 2.5 million years ago in East Africa, biodiversity has been declining. This decline was intensified with the invention of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, sharply reducing plants and animal biodiversity. In response to agricultural requirements, humans, through domestication, have caused animals and plants to evolve artificially [ 1 ]. Additionally, wild plants and animals in farming areas have been affected by the increase in food production; the diversity of these wild organisms has declined [ 2 ]. Growing domesticated species involves different cultivation conditions and techniques, such as the use of fertilizers, tillage, changes in land use, and the use of specific varieties of cultivated plants, all of which depend on the availability of natural resources and have resulted in a profound reduction in biodiversity [ 3 ]. The increase in food production was achieved as a result of these alterations. Owing to this increase, the human population also increased in number. Estimates suggest that since the appearance of humans, approximately 2.5 million years were needed to reach a population of between 1 and 10 million, which occurred before agriculture was invented. Thereafter, since the invention of agriculture, only 5000 years were needed to double that figure and reach a population of between 5 and 20 million [ 4 , 5 ]. This acceleration in population increase resulting from agriculture also implies that a continuous increase in agricultural production is required to meet the demands of the growing population. Therefore, a continuous increase in the area dedicated to agriculture is needed to cope with the growing food demands. Today, we estimate that the area dedicated to agriculture is in excess of 38% of the earth’s surface [ 6 ]. An alternative solution is agricultural intensification, i.e., the increase in agricultural production per unit area through different farming techniques ( Figure 1 ). However, agricultural intensification results in an additional loss of biodiversity. Agricultural expansion and intensification are together recognized as the key drivers of biodiversity loss in the 21st century [ 7 ].

Conceptual diagram of traditional farming and Green Revolution, and Underground Revolution on soil microbial biodiversity. Colored dots represent microbial taxa.

Previous studies analyzed the impact of different agricultural practices on soil microbial biodiversity. In this work, we explored the impact that traditional practices have and compared them with the practices associated with the Green Revolution. In addition, we proposed a series of alternative practices based on the use of safe microorganisms in order to promote more sustainable agricultural practices and greater conservation of soil microbial biodiversity.

2. The Impact of Traditional Agricultural Management and Techniques

2.1. floods.

The origin of agriculture initially occurred near large rivers, such as the Euphrates, Tigris, Indus, and Huang He rivers, and on their floodplains. These areas are now home to nearly 2.7 billion people [ 8 , 9 ]. These rivers were associated with arid or semi-arid areas, and they caused floods that enriched the surrounding areas with nutrients present in the sediments (mostly nitrogen and phosphorous but also potassium, magnesium, sulfur, and calcium), making them suitable for cultivation. The increase in soil nutrients from the sediments from river floods results in increased soil microbial respiration, biomass, and enzyme activity [ 10 ]. Changes in the amount and type of decomposable nutrients and altered nitrogen fluxes affect plant growth and soil microbial biomass and biodiversity [ 11 , 12 ]. Floods also affect oxygen availability and, thus, in theory, create the ideal anaerobic conditions for switching an aerobic microbial community into a dominant anaerobic one [ 13 ]. In general, the microbial biomass is reduced after a flooding event, as was determined by Wagner et al. (2015). On the basis of the study of fatty acids, they observed a higher proportion of Gram-positive bacteria than Gram-negative bacteria in response to the flooding effect [ 14 ]. However, in the short term, the increased concentration of nutrients depends on the plant diversity of the area and the increased availability of nitrogen as a result of the flood. In areas with low plant diversity, typical in agriculture environments, these effects are more pronounced and higher alterations in biomass and soil microbial activity are found, improving crop production [ 10 ].

2.2. Irrigation

After achieving cultivation on riverbanks, expanding agriculture required an irrigation system that supplied water to plants that were farther from the river. To this end, irrigation systems were used, involving channels, ditches, and various water transport systems connected to the nearest river. Irrigation systems also alter ecosystems in a similar manner to floods, although the effects of irrigation on plants were mitigated by the use of furrows or ridges that prevented water from covering the plants. Regions in which rainwater is insufficient for agriculture, such as arid and semi-arid regions, depend on irrigation systems, and these have a substantial impact on soil microbiota. According to various studies, the continued use of irrigation in the cold desert sagebrush steppe resulted in a loss of soil nutrients; for example, a loss of up to 16% of the stored carbon and approximately one-third of the NH 4 -N was reported, as compared with non-irrigated soils. These changes in the soil’s nutritional contents also affect the microbial (bacterial and fungal) community. Despite the nutrient reduction, microbial richness, evenness, and diversity generally increased with irrigation, most likely due to the increase in water availability [ 15 ].

Currently, various irrigation systems are associated with wastewater treatment plants, which result in an increase in the total nitrogen and organic matter in the soils. However, despite this increase in nutrients, the microbiota of these soils is reduced by the presence of certain pollutants, such as heavy metals, including mercury [ 16 ], and by the introduction of human-derived microorganisms.

After the success of agriculture on the margins of rivers, and after the invention of irrigation systems, agriculture was extended to zones previously occupied by forests. Large areas of forest were burned to cultivate domesticated plants and to create new grazing areas [ 17 ]. This technique is still in use today, with an estimated 7.2% of global forests having been lost since 2000. This is especially prevalent in tropical regions (mainly South America and Africa), where a 60% reduction in intact forest landscapes was observed between 2000 to 2013 [ 18 ]. This type of expansion also contributes to the loss of biodiversity. Specifically, fires cause an important loss of both plant and animal biodiversity, which profoundly affects the ecosystem. In addition, these fires generate changes in the chemical and physical properties of the soil, as a function of the fire severity and soil type [ 19 ]. These changes in the soil properties are caused by the heat generated, which induces chemical oxidation of soil organic matter, which, in turn, affects the microbial composition of the soil. This also occurs during wildfires [ 20 ]. Studies conducted in Mediterranean forests affected by fires showed that the fire had an impact on the bacterial communities involved in the nitrogen cycle, causing a loss of the diversity of the nif H gene, which codes for the enzyme nitrogenase reductase [ 21 ]. The effect on the nitrogen cycle depends on the type of plants present in the soil prior to the wildfire. Prendergast-Miller et al. demonstrated that ammonium is the dominant form of soluble nitrogen found in the soil when eucalyptus trees are burned. In contrast, nitrate becomes the dominant form of soluble nitrogen in the soil after the burning of pasture [ 22 ]. Alterations in the microorganisms involved in nitrogen metabolism were found in response to the altered nitrogen cycle. An increase in Actinobacteria and Firmicutes phyla in the soil was noted after a wildfire in a Mediterranean forest [ 23 ]. Actinobacteria , Proteobacteria , and Firmicutes phyla were detected after the wildfire in a eucalyptus forest [ 22 ]. Proteobacteria , Acidobacteria , and Actinobacteria phyla were identified after a wildfire in a northern boreal forest [ 24 ]. Numerous species of the Actinobacteria phylum have been described as having a high tolerance to abiotic stresses, such as heat and a lack of nutrients and drought; thus, it is normal to find this type of bacteria after a forest fire [ 25 ].

Fire is still used to remove slash, stubble, straw, and plant debris from previous harvests. This practice causes increased soil erosion, increases soil pH, causes loss of nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur, and, in general, results in a decrease in soil quality [ 26 ]. The burning of straw residues also pollutes the atmosphere, as it produces greenhouse gas emissions (including CH 4 and N 2 O) that exceed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) default value [ 27 ]. Furthermore, this adversely affects the soil microbiota and, more specifically, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)—a particular type of rhizobacteria from the area surrounding the root that improve plant growth [ 28 ].

2.4. Tilling and Plowing

Overturning the surface layers of the soil to eliminate weeds and other unwanted plants and seedbed preparation in the cropping area is an alternative to fire. This can be achieved by either tilling or plowing, both of which contribute to the aeration of the soil and mixing when fertilizers have been added. However, tillage and plowing also alter the biological and chemical characteristics of the soil and promote erosion by reducing soil moisture and organic matter contents [ 29 , 30 ]. Both techniques affect the population of earthworms (Lumbricidae) and soil microorganisms. Both earthworms and soil microorganisms have an important impact on the biological, chemical, and physical properties of the soil and affect its quality [ 31 ]. Earthworms represent the largest component of animal biomass in the soil, and they increase soil quality by improving its structure and increasing nutrient availability [ 32 ]. The control of plant pathogens, the production of PGPR, and the production of plant growth-regulating substances have been previously described [ 33 ]. According to a recent meta-analysis, earthworms contribute to nutrient availability by releasing their casts, which contain higher phosphorus (84%), nitrogen (24%) [ 34 ] and organic carbon (an average of over 40–48%) than bulk soil. However, conventional tilling and plowing techniques markedly reduce the earthworm population, with immature worms, which make up 76–90% of the population, being particularly affected [ 35 , 36 ]. The adverse impact that tilling and plowing have on earthworms depends on the soil texture and climate conditions.

Zuber and Villamil described the negative impact that tillage has on soil microbial biodiversity and enzyme activity using a meta-analysis based on 139 observations [ 37 ]. Loss of moisture, changes in temperature, alterations to soil microclimatic factors, and access to organic matter all influence microbial communities [ 38 ]. Soil organic matter dynamics profoundly depend on microbial abundance and diversity [ 39 , 40 ]. Navarro-Noya et al. described the alterations in the bacterial community caused by tillage, and more specifically, alteration in Actinobacteria, Betaproteobacteria , and Gammaproteobacteria . In this study, the proportion of Betaproteobacteria was correlated with electrolytic conductivity and clay content, while the proportion of Gammaproteobacteria was correlated with the total organic carbon [ 39 ].

2.5. Fertilizers

Another milestone in the history of agriculture is the use of fertilizers. These compounds, initially of organic nature, came from domesticated animal dung or bird guano. Soil concentrations of certain chemical elements increased with the addition of fertilizers, helping crop plant growth. The most common elements found in fertilizers are nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in different proportions. A lack of or scarcity of such elements in many soils limits the productivity of the plants. However, the increase in the production of certain plants through the addition of fertilizers results in a reduction in plant biodiversity in the treated area [ 41 , 42 ]. The reduction in plant biodiversity due to soil fertilization is normally associated with increases in aboveground production [ 43 ]. This phenomenon can be explained with three different theories: (i) the light asymmetry theory , which is related to the delayed growth of slower-growing plants [ 44 ].; (ii) the total competition hypothesis , which suggests a belowground competition in addition to the aboveground competition [ 45 ]; (iii) the litter hypothesis , which points to the fact that increased production of certain plants produces an increase in litter production of these species, inhibiting the germination of seeds from other species [ 46 ].

On the basis of a meta-analysis of 115 experiments, a reduction in biodiversity is observed with the addition of nitrogen. This reduction is more remarkable when NH 4 + is used than when NO 3 is used as a fertilizer. This loss of species richness due to nitrogen addition has been shown to be more significant in warmer environments, resulting in a greater loss of nitrogen-sensitive species, such as legumes and non-vascular plants [ 47 ]. In addition, several studies show a reduction in species richness after the addition of phosphorus and other nutrients as a fertilizer [ 47 ].

The reduction in plant biodiversity due to fertilizer addition also results in a reduction in the biodiversity of the soil microbiota (at both the bacterial and fungal levels) [ 48 ]. Moreover, the addition of these fertilizers affects carbon availability, pH, and soil osmolarity. Furthermore, it generates toxicity due to the presence of certain ions, resulting in a reduction in the abundance of Acidobacteria and Nitrospirae and a slight increase in Actinobacteria and Firmicutes . This reduction in microbial diversity in response to nitrogen addition is associated with a reduction in microbial biomass [ 49 ].

The traditional use of fertilizers of animal origin also alters the microbial composition. This is associated with both the way in which the elements are found and the incorporation of microorganisms from the intestine of the animals [ 50 , 51 ].

2.6. Herbicides and Other Pesticides

Herbicides are chemical molecules designed to reduce the growth of unwanted plants, and thus, they promote the productivity of the plants used in agriculture. Herbicides normally have different weed targets (see Beffa et al. (2019) for a recent review) [ 52 ] and have a high oxidative potential due to the high number of electronegative residues in their structure, including chlorine, phosphoric acid, hydroxide, oxygen, sulfonyl, amines, etc. This increased oxidative potential and other molecular interactions also affect non-target organisms, including other photosynthetic organisms, shredders, primary and secondary predators, and decomposers, including various soil microorganisms, resulting in a general increase in members of the Actinobacteria phylum and other herbicide-tolerant bacteria [ 53 ]. In addition, microbial communities are enriched with microorganisms with the metabolic machinery to degrade and consume such chemicals [ 54 ]. Agriculture also makes use of other chemical molecules to kill fungi, nematodes, insects, and rodents that affect food production. Again, such molecules alter the biodiversity of the area in which they are used and have a particularly profound effect on soil microorganisms [ 55 , 56 ].

2.7. Other Aspects of the Green Revolution

A huge increase in the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides coincided with the use of non-renewable fuel-driven machinery, highly efficient controlled watering systems, and specific plant varieties with higher yields, all of which tripled global crop production from 1950 in a process termed the Green Revolution. However, the outstanding increase in crop production associated with the Green Revolution had serious environmental impacts. These impacts include a marked increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a threatening dependence on fossil fuels, conflicts associated with water use and sovereignty, soil salinization, a remarkable reduction in biodiversity, and substantial damage to human health and the environment [ 57 ]. These effects have intensified due to the increased demand for meat on a global scale and the production of crops for biofuel [ 58 , 59 ]. Many researchers point to global climate change, water eutrophication, and soil salinization as the main consequences of the Green Revolution, all of which cause tremendous biodiversity losses [ 60 , 61 ]. Therefore, alternatives to the current agriculture techniques associated with the Green Revolution are needed in order to prevent a massive reduction in biodiversity. An alternative method with which to tackle the increased food demand is internal ecosystem engineering, which can be seen as an alternative to the external manipulation of ecosystems associated with the Green Revolution. Brender et al. coined the term Underground Revolution to denote a method that provides the appropriate combination of organisms to the soil according to the plant requirements for growth [ 62 ].

3. Future Prospects and Concluding Remarks

Microorganisms can be used to promote plant growth by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and solubilizing inorganic phosphate; they can be used as alternatives to pesticides for the control of insects and other pathogens and can even promote plant growth in saline and arid soils [ 63 , 64 , 65 ]. The detrimental effects associated with various agricultural practices can be counterbalanced by the use of certain microorganisms. The use of biostimulants has been proposed as a method to reestablish the environment after floods and irrigation, fires, tilling, and plowing. Moreover, they are currently used as an alternative to chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and other pesticides. Biostimulants offer an environmentally friendly technique to reduce the damaging effects associated with these chemicals.

Several studies demonstrate that the addition of Rhizophagus irregularis or Glomus mosseae , both types of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), facilitates plant growth by enhancing the absorption of nutrient elements, such as phosphorous, and by promoting proline accumulation and improving root architecture under flooding conditions [ 66 , 67 ]. Furthermore, PGPB, such as Pseudomonas fluorescens REN 1 and Pseudomonas putida UW4, have been used to protect plants such as Rumex palustris from floods owing to their ability to promote root elongation in plants through the activity of ACC deaminase and by reducing the production of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) under constant flooded conditions [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition to microorganisms, other molecules, known as biostimulants, can promote plant growth by altering plant hormonal profiles [ 70 ]. Similar effects have been observed when applying various types of biostimulants based on fermented vegetable extracts and seaweed together with phytohormones. They provide protection for plants from floods but also improve soil microbial biodiversity by increasing the activity of soil enzymes involved in nitrogen fixation, phosphorus solubilization, the production of organic substances, and oxidation-reduction processes [ 71 ].

Soil toxicity resulting from fires used for agricultural practices can be reduced by AMF, PGPR, and other biostimulants. A recent study by Turjaman and Osaki (2021) described the use of AMF, ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi, and PGPR to restore soils affected by fires [ 72 ]. These strains reduce the toxicity of soils by transforming the pollutants into less toxic forms, regulating the bioavailability of certain molecules by producing certain chelators, and by releasing certain extracellular enzymes and hormones. Several PGPR belonging to the genera Arthrobacter , Pseudomonas , and Bacillus have been effectively used for the remediation of heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, and to restore soil pH in soils affected by fires. Various bacteria also enhance the efficiency of bioremediation by promoting plant growth, alleviating pollutant phytotoxicity, improving ecosystem resilience, altering the bioavailability of pollutants in soil, and increasing translocation within plants [ 73 , 74 ]. Deforestation resulting from fires reduces evapotranspiration, which translates into increased aridity and desertification. The stress produced by water scarcity can be reduced by using certain microorganisms such as Microbacterium sp. 3J1 [ 75 ].

Other biostimulants have been used to reduce the detrimental effect associated with pollutants such as herbicides and pesticides. These dangerous chemicals can be replaced by biostimulants, which are widely used as biological control agents to antagonize and suppress destructive entomopathogens and bacterial and fungal pathogens in several ways [ 76 ]. The use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides also increases soil salinity, which can be alleviated by using certain microorganisms such as various species of the genus Dermacoccus [ 77 ].

It is important to guarantee that the introduction of biostimulants does not have a negative impact on the environment or human health. Vílchez et al. proposed a combination of bioassays to numerically determine the biosafety of bacterial strains that are intended to be released as biostimulants [ 78 ]. The European Union has recently regulated the use of bacteria as biostimulants in Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. However, the criteria established for shortlisting microbes that can be used are, in our opinion, inappropriate, as they are based solely on taxonomical criteria, as described by Barros-Rodríguez et al. [ 79 ]. In addition, appropriate assays should be incorporated to guarantee the efficiency of microbes used as biostimulants, including heat-inactivated microorganisms as controls, and these should be coupled with a proper analysis of the biostimulant expiration date [ 79 ].

In conclusion, the addition of certain biostimulants, in combination with appropriate management practices, would increase biodiversity in agricultural soils, providing specific functions and enhancing the overall ecosystem, which is of particular relevance in light of the increasing demand for food.

Acknowledgments

We thank Nieves Escolano and Ginés González de Patto for their technical support and VitaNtech Biotechnology for donation of materials and administrative support.

Author Contributions

Investigation, A.B.-R. and P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.-R. and M.M.; conceptualization, W.P.-a. and K.L.; funding acquisition, supervision, and writing—review and editing M.M. and W.P.-a. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness and the European Union, within the context of the research projects CTM2017-84332-R, and CGL2017-91737-EXP, and by the Andalusian Regional Government under the aegis of research project P11-RNM-7844 and P18-RT-976. W.P.-a., K.L., and P.R. are also grateful for partial support by Chiang Mai University and the European Union through the Erasmus+ program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rethinking Modern Agriculture: Essays On Farmers, Productivity And The Environment

Degree type

Graduate group, grant number, copyright date, distributor, related resources, contributor.

Agriculture industry has shown outstanding productivity growth globally in the past half a century, providing the growing population with affordable, abundant and safe food supplies but faces major challenges regarding its future production and environmental and socioeconomic impact. This dissertation illustrates that exploring “shop-floor” problems by studying farm and supply chain operations and the local context may reveal valuable solutions to major economic, social and environmental problems in agriculture. I analyze unprecedented data on micro-activities of farmers gathered through industry partnerships and conduct extensive qualitative field work to relate micro-level differences in farm practices and environment to the differences in economic, social and environmental outcomes in two major agricultural contexts: (i) Smallholder coconut and cacao farming in the Philippines, representing smallholder farming systems common in the developing world, which faces low adoption of seemingly beneficial practices, low and stagnant farm productivity and widespread farmer poverty; and (ii) large-scale corn and soybean farming in the US, representing large-scale, mechanized farming systems common in advanced economies, which faces widespread environmental degradation and low farm incomes. Major findings in the Philippines include that the best practices vary with local farm environment, micro-details of practices are strongly determinate of productivity outcomes, and effective practice adoption is associated with spatial proximity to central experts and successful adopters, which together suggest that supporting organizations should adopt a process view of practice adoption and that customized advice communicated in micro-detail, e.g. through expert visits and providing local “blueprint” farms, may enable effective dissemination of best practices and address low farm productivity and farmer poverty. Major US findings include that there are significant environmental and economic benefits to customizing practices to varying within-field environment but realizing these benefits are not economic for individual farmers without significant but possible changes in farm technology and/or environmental conservation policies. This dissertation illustrates the value of applying operations management tools and perspectives to major economic, social and environmental problems in agriculture.

Date of degree

Date range for data collection (start date), date range for data collection (end date), digital object identifier, series name and number, volume number, issue number, publisher doi, journal issue, recommended citation, usage statistics.

• Frequently downloaded items
• Most read researchers
• Popular subjects
• International readership

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2024 LYRASIS

• Cookie settings
• Privacy policy
• End User Agreement
• Send Feedback