Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

National food production stabilized by crop diversity

Matters Arising to this article was published on 09 December 2020

Abstract

Increasing global food demand, low grain reserves and climate change threaten the stability of food systems on national to global scales1,2,3,4,5. Policies to increase yields, irrigation and tolerance of crops to drought have been proposed as stability-enhancing solutions1,6,7. Here we evaluate a complementary possibility—that greater diversity of crops at the national level may increase the year-to-year stability of the total national harvest of all crops combined. We test this crop diversity–stability hypothesis using 5 decades of data on annual yields of 176 crop species in 91 nations. We find that greater effective diversity of crops at the national level is associated with increased temporal stability of total national harvest. Crop diversity has stabilizing effects that are similar in magnitude to the observed destabilizing effects of variability in precipitation. This greater stability reflects markedly lower frequencies of years with sharp harvest losses. Diversity effects remained robust after statistically controlling for irrigation, fertilization, precipitation, temperature and other variables, and are consistent with the variance-scaling characteristics of individual crops required by theory8,9 for diversity to lead to stability. Ensuring stable food supplies is a challenge that will probably require multiple solutions. Our results suggest that increasing national effective crop diversity may be an additional way to address this challenge.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Determinants of national caloric yield stability.
Fig. 2: National yield stability and probabilities of crop harvest losses.
Fig. 3: Determinants of temporal variation and mean national caloric yield.

Data availability

The sources of all data used in this study are referenced in the Methods and all raw data are freely accessible at the URLs provided in Extended Data Table 1. The dataset used for the analyses is available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. 1.

    Rosenzweig, C. & Parry, M. L. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133–138 (1994).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fraser, E. D. G., Legwegoh, A. & Krishna, K. C. Food stocks and grain reserves: evaluating whether storing food creates resilient food systems. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5, 445–458 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Marchand, P. et al. Reserves and trade jointly determine exposure to food supply shocks. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095009 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Challinor, A. J. et al. Transmission of climate risks across sectors and borders. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170301 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bailey, R. et al. Extreme Weather and Resilience of the Global Food System. Final Project Report from the UK–US Taskforce on Extreme Weather and Global Food System Resilience https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications/archive/page/4/ (The Global Food Security Programme, 2015).

  8. 8.

    Doak, D. F. et al. The statistical inevitability of stability–diversity relationships in community ecology. Am. Nat. 151, 264–276 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Tilman, D. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Huai, J. Dynamics of resilience of wheat to drought in Australia from 1991–2010. Sci. Rep. 7, 9532 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bren d’Amour, C., Wenz, L., Kalkuhl, M., Steckel, J. C. & Creutzig, F. Teleconnected food supply shocks. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035007 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rippey, B. R. The US drought of 2012. Weather Clim. Extrem. 10, 57–64 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Harvey, C. A. et al. Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20130089 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sternberg, T. Chinese drought, bread and the Arab Spring. Appl. Geogr. 34, 519–524 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rosset, P. Food sovereignty and the contemporary food crisis. Development 51, 460–463 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W. & Cramer, W. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014046 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Puma, M. J., Bose, S., Chon, S. Y. & Cook, B. I. Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environ. Manage. 10, 024007 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  19. 19.

    FAO. Soaring Food Prices: Guide for Policy and Programmatic Actions at Country Level to address High Food Prices. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ISFP/revisedISFP_guide_web.pdf (2011).

  20. 20.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 18123–18128 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gross, K. et al. Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of recent biodiversity experiments. Am. Nat. 183, 1–12 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tubiello, F. N. Make better use of UN food and agriculture stats. Nature 563, 35 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Davis, A. S., Hill, J. D., Chase, C. A., Johanns, A. M. & Liebman, M. Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7, e47149 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lin, B. B. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 61, 183–193 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Snapp, S. S., Blackie, M. J., Gilbert, R. A., Bezner-Kerr, R. & Kanyama-Phiri, G. Y. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20840–20845 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Gaudin, A. C. M. et al. Increasing crop diversity mitigates weather variations and improves yield stability. PLoS ONE 10, e0113261 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Abson, D. J., Fraser, E. D. & Benton, T. G. Landscape diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns: a portfolio analysis of land-use patterns and economic returns from lowland agriculture. Agric. Food Secur. 2, 2 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Challinor, A. J., Koehler, A.-K., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Whitfield, S. & Das, B. Current warming will reduce yields unless maize breeding and seed systems adapt immediately. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 954–958 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Raseduzzaman, M. & Jensen, E. S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 91, 25–33 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    United States Department of Agriculture. National Nutrient Database. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ (2013).

  32. 32.

    Hill, M. O. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54, 427–432 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Marshall, M. G. Codebook: Major Episodes of Political Violence (MEPV) and Conflict Regions, 1946–2015. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/MEPVcodebook2015.pdf (2016).

  34. 34.

    Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations - the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A. & Ramankutty, N. Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 607–620 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Danielson, J. J. & Gesch, D. B. Global Multi-Resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010). https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1073/pdf/of2011-1073.pdf (US Geological Survey, 2011).

  38. 38.

    FAO-UNESCO. Soil Map of the World: Revised Legend (with Corrections and Updates). World Soil Resources Report 60 http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/faounesco-soil-map-of-the-world/en/ (FAO, 1988).

  39. 39.

    Simons, G. F. & Fennig, C. D. Ethnologues: Languages of the World 21st edn (SIL International, 2017).

  40. 40.

    MacDonald, G. K. et al. Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization. Bioscience 65, 275–289 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    JMP v.12.0.1 (SAS Institute, 2007).

  42. 42.

    Quantum GIS Development Team. Quantum GIS Geographic Information. version 2.13 (2016).

  43. 43.

    Tilman, D. Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5995–6000 (1999).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Bren School of Environment Science and Management of the University of California Santa Barbara for support. This work was also supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the ‘Make Our Planet Great Again’ program (17-MPGA-0004) and by a National Science Foundation grant (LTER-1831944). We thank the FAO and its member countries, the University of East Anglia and the Center for Systematic Peace for data collection, dissemination and guidance on data use.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.R. and D.T. conceived the project; D.R. assembled and analysed the data; D.R. and D.T. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Delphine Renard.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Relationship between effective crop species diversity and crop species number per nation.

a, Black dots are mean effective crop species diversities and bars show the σ for nations grouped as planting 1–20, 20–40, 40–60, 60–80 or 80–100 crop species during 2001–2010 (n = 91). Data for each nation are shown as grey dots. Note that for a given number of crop species, there is a wide range in their effective crop species diversity caused by some nations having only a few dominant crops (and thus having a low effective diversity) and other nations having many crops of more similar abundances (and thus a high effective diversity). The two circled dots highlight 2 such nations, both growing 30 crop species but either very unevenly (that is, the dot with low effective diversity) or more evenly (that is, the dot high effective diversity). b, The frequency distribution of the effective crop species diversity values for this same time period.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Main determinants of national caloric yield stability.

af, Magnitude of the change in national yield stability as dependent on effective crop group diversity (a) and effective species diversity (d), precipitation instability (b, e) and irrigation (c, f). ac, Values of national yield stability are predictions from the multiple regression model using effective crop group diversity (Extended Data Table 2a). df, Values of national yield stability are predictions from the multiple regression model using effective crop species diversity (Extended Data Table 2b). Predicted values were back-transformed from log-transformation, calculated using the observed range of the three predictors and keeping all the other predictors at their mean values. The grey bands represent the regression 95% confidence interval.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Contribution of crop groups to national caloric yield stability for each of six geographical regions.

A positive value of the log-transformed response ratio of yield stability for a crop group indicates that the presence of that crop group has a stabilizing effect. A negative value indicates a destabilizing effect. National log response ratios are represented per geographical region. In most regions, the presence of a given crop group is associated with increased national yield stability (n = 819).

Extended Data Table 1 Sources of data supporting findings
Extended Data Table 2 Determinants of national caloric yield stability, mean and temporal variation
Extended Data Table 3 Robustness checks of models testing the crop diversity–stability relationship
Extended Data Table 4 Robustness checks for data quality
Extended Data Table 5 Influence of crop diversity and mean weather on national caloric yield stability, mean and temporal variation
Extended Data Table 6 Determinants of caloric yield stability, mean and temporal variation of geographical regions
Extended Data Table 7 Determinants of national economic yield stability, mean and temporal variation

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Renard, D., Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing