Explore the vast range of titles available.

A meta-analysis assessing the relative yields of organic and conventional agriculture shows that organic yields are on average lower, but that the magnitude of the difference is dependent on context. Crop yields compared There is much debate over the relative merits of conventional farming, which has a large environmental impact on the land it uses, and organic farming, which may require greater land use for the same yield. Central to this debate — and the subject of some controversy — are the relative yields of the two farming systems. Seufert et al . present a meta-analysis of the available scientific literature on organic-to-conventional yield comparisons, and conclude that organic yields are indeed lower, but that the difference varies substantially according to crop type, growing conditions and management practices. For instance, for perennials grown on favourable soils organic yields are just 5% lower than conventional yields, but the yield difference between the most comparable conventional and organic systems is as high as 34%. The authors conclude that the factors that limit organic yields need to be better understood to enable meaningful comparisons between the rival forms of agriculture. Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes in the global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts 1 , 2 . Organic farming—a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans—is often proposed as a solution 3 , 4 . However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices 5 . Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.

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

In the coming decades, continued population growth, rising meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will dramatically increase the pressure on global agriculture. Even as we face these future burdens, there have been scattered reports of yield stagnation in the world’s major cereal crops, including maize, rice and wheat. Here we study data from ∼2.5 million census observations across the globe extending over the period 1961–2008. We examined the trends in crop yields for four key global crops: maize, rice, wheat and soybeans. Although yields continue to increase in many areas, we find that across 24–39% of maize-, rice-, wheat- and soybean-growing areas, yields either never improve, stagnate or collapse. This result underscores the challenge of meeting increasing global agricultural demands. New investments in underperforming regions, as well as strategies to continue increasing yields in the high-performing areas, are required. Demand for crops is increasing, but it is not clear whether the yields can meet this demand. Using crop yield observations, this study analyses global trends and finds that while yields continue to increase in some areas, across 24–39% of crop-growing regions, yields have stagnated or declined over the past 50 years.

Global yields of major crops are analysed using climate, irrigation and new nutrient data to show that large production increases are possible from closing yield gaps to 100% of attainable yields, and that changes in management practices needed to close yield gaps vary considerably by region and current intensity. How and where to feed the world Many crops, particularly those grown in developing countries, produce considerably less than their theoretically attainable yields. This study uses global data on yields for 17 major crops, along with climate, irrigation and nutrient data, to show where yields could be increased with either nutrient addition or irrigation, and where overuse of nutrients and water could be cut without reducing yields. The resulting map identifies regions where it should be possible to decrease the environmental impact of agriculture by eliminating nutrient overuse, while still allowing an approximately 30% increase in major cereal production. In the coming decades, a crucial challenge for humanity will be meeting future food demands without undermining further the integrity of the Earth’s environmental systems 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 . Agricultural systems are already major forces of global environmental degradation 4 , 7 , but population growth and increasing consumption of calorie- and meat-intensive diets are expected to roughly double human food demand by 2050 (ref. 3 ). Responding to these pressures, there is increasing focus on ‘sustainable intensification’ as a means to increase yields on underperforming landscapes while simultaneously decreasing the environmental impacts of agricultural systems 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 . However, it is unclear what such efforts might entail for the future of global agricultural landscapes. Here we present a global-scale assessment of intensification prospects from closing ‘yield gaps’ (differences between observed yields and those attainable in a given region), the spatial patterns of agricultural management practices and yield limitation, and the management changes that may be necessary to achieve increased yields. We find that global yield variability is heavily controlled by fertilizer use, irrigation and climate. Large production increases (45% to 70% for most crops) are possible from closing yield gaps to 100% of attainable yields, and the changes to management practices that are needed to close yield gaps vary considerably by region and current intensity. Furthermore, we find that there are large opportunities to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture by eliminating nutrient overuse, while still allowing an approximately 30% increase in production of major cereals (maize, wheat and rice). Meeting the food security and sustainability challenges of the coming decades is possible, but will require considerable changes in nutrient and water management.

To assemble a data set of global crop planting and harvesting dates for 19 major crops, explore spatial relationships between planting date and climate for two of them, and compare our analysis with a review of the literature on factors that drive decisions on planting dates. Global. We digitized and georeferenced existing data on crop planting and harvesting dates from six sources. We then examined relationships between planting dates and temperature, precipitation and potential evapotranspiration using 30-year average climatologies from the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (CRU CL 2.0). We present global planting date patterns for maize, spring wheat and winter wheat (our full, publicly available data set contains planting and harvesting dates for 19 major crops). Maize planting in the northern mid-latitudes generally occurs in April and May. Daily average air temperatures are usually c. 12-17 °C at the time of maize planting in these regions, although soil moisture often determines planting date more directly than does temperature. Maize planting dates vary more widely in tropical regions. Spring wheat is usually planted at cooler temperatures than maize, between c. 8 and 14 °C in temperate regions. Winter wheat is generally planted in September and October in the northern mid-latitudes. In temperate regions, spatial patterns of maize and spring wheat planting dates can be predicted reasonably well by assuming a fixed temperature at planting. However, planting dates in lower latitudes and planting dates of winter wheat are more difficult to predict from climate alone. In part this is because planting dates may be chosen to ensure a favourable climate during a critical growth stage, such as flowering, rather than to ensure an optimal climate early in the crop's growth. The lack of predictability is also due to the pervasive influence of technological and socio-economic factors on planting dates.

The world's agricultural systems face the challenge of meeting the rising demands from population growth, changing dietary preferences, and expanding biofuel use. Previous studies have put forward strategies for meeting this growing demand by increasing global crop production, either expanding the area under cultivation or intensifying the crop yields of our existing agricultural lands. However, another possible means for increasing global crop production has received less attention: increasing the frequency of global cropland harvested each year. Historically, many of the world's croplands were left fallow, or had failed harvests, each year, foregoing opportunities for delivering crop production. Furthermore, many regions, particularly in the tropics, may be capable of multiple harvests per year, often more than are harvested today. Here we analyze a global compilation of agricultural statistics to show how the world's harvested cropland has changed. Between 2000 and 2011, harvested land area grew roughly 4 times faster than total standing cropland area. Using a metric of cropland harvest frequency (CHF)-the ratio of land harvested each year to the total standing cropland-and its recent trends, we identify countries that harvest their croplands more frequently, and those that have the potential to increase their cropland harvest frequency. We suggest that a possible 'harvest gap' may exist in many countries that represents an opportunity to increase crop production on existing agricultural lands. However, increasing the harvest frequency of existing croplands could have significant environmental and social impacts, which need careful evaluation.

Worldwide demand for crops is increasing rapidly due to global population growth, increased biofuel production, and changing dietary preferences. Meeting these growing demands will be a substantial challenge that will tax the capability of our food system and prompt calls to dramatically boost global crop production. However, to increase food availability, we may also consider how the world's crops are allocated to different uses and whether it is possible to feed more people with current levels of crop production. Of particular interest are the uses of crops as animal feed and as biofuel feedstocks. Currently, 36% of the calories produced by the world's crops are being used for animal feed, and only 12% of those feed calories ultimately contribute to the human diet (as meat and other animal products). Additionally, human-edible calories used for biofuel production increased fourfold between the years 2000 and 2010, from 1% to 4%, representing a net reduction of available food globally. In this study, we re-examine agricultural productivity, going from using the standard definition of yield (in tonnes per hectare, or similar units) to using the number of people actually fed per hectare of cropland. We find that, given the current mix of crop uses, growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could, in principle, increase available food calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people (more than the projected 2-3 billion people arriving through population growth). Even small shifts in our allocation of crops to animal feed and biofuels could significantly increase global food availability, and could be an instrumental tool in meeting the challenges of ensuring global food security.

Irrigation consumes more water than any other human activity, and thus the challenges of water sustainability and food security are closely linked. To evaluate how water resources are used for food production, we examined global patterns of water productivity-food produced (kcal) per unit of water (l) consumed. We document considerable variability in crop water productivity globally, not only across different climatic zones but also within climatic zones. The least water productive systems are disproportionate freshwater consumers. On precipitation-limited croplands, we found that ∼40% of water consumption goes to production of just 20% of food calories. Because in many cases crop water productivity is well below optimal levels, in many cases farmers have substantial opportunities to improve water productivity. To demonstrate the potential impact of management interventions, we calculated that raising crop water productivity in precipitation-limited regions to the 20th percentile of productivity would increase annual production on rainfed cropland by enough to provide food for an estimated 110 million people, and water consumption on irrigated cropland would be reduced enough to meet the annual domestic water demands of nearly 1.4 billion people.

The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures. Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate–health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events. Climate change Health warning Nature this week includes reviews, original research and comment on a hot topic, the regional effects of climate change. The cover image — Chicago during the July 1995 heatwave — highlights one potential risk. Patz et al . consider the available evidence and suggest that climate warming already contributes to ill health and thousands of premature deaths across the world, and is likely to have serious health implications in the future. Recent work suggests that some regions are particularly at risk: areas where climate is dominated by El Niño/Southern Oscillation events, sub-Saharan Africa, and sprawling urban areas subject to the heat island effect are already suffering from climate impacts and these are projected to increase. In many cases, regions at high risk are those least responsible for causing climate change. Sure thing All currently available climate models predict a near-surface warming trend under the influence of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Barnett et al . evaluate the effect of such a warming trend on regional hydrology, particularly in snowmelt-dominated environments. They suggest that warming will cause a change from snowfall to rain, diminishing natural water storage capacity, as well as earlier melting of winter snow, shifting peak river runoff away from the periods of highest demand in summer and autumn. The reduction in glaciers and snow-packs are likely to have severe consequences for the water supply of one-sixth of the Earth's population. Water supply It is generally assumed that climate change will alter the hydrological cycle, but predicting which parts of the world will be drier and which will be wetter is a difficult problem. Milly et al . focus on streamflow and water availability trends and find that an ensemble of twelve current climate models accurately accounts for twentieth-century changes. The same models project potentially crucial regional effects on streamflow in the future that could threaten the availability of freshwater in many regions of the world by the year 2050.