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.

  • Article
  • Published:

From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution

Nature volume 610, pages 507–512 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Excessive agricultural nitrogen use causes environmental problems globally1, to an extent that it has been suggested that a safe planetary boundary has been exceeded2. Earlier estimates for the planetary nitrogen boundary3,4, however, did not account for the spatial variability in both ecosystems’ sensitivity to nitrogen pollution and agricultural nitrogen losses. Here we use a spatially explicit model to establish regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen surplus from thresholds for eutrophication of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and nitrate in groundwater. We estimate regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution and find both overuse and room for intensification of agricultural nitrogen. The aggregated global surplus boundary with respect to all thresholds is 43 megatonnes of nitrogen per year, which is 64 per cent lower than the current (2010) nitrogen surplus (119 megatonnes of nitrogen per year). Allowing the nitrogen surplus to increase to close yield gaps in regions where environmental thresholds are not exceeded lifts the planetary nitrogen boundary to 57 megatonnes of nitrogen per year. Feeding the world without trespassing regional and planetary nitrogen boundaries requires large increases in nitrogen use efficiencies accompanied by mitigation of non-agricultural nitrogen sources such as sewage water. This asks for coordinated action that recognizes the heterogeneity of agricultural systems, non-agricultural nitrogen losses and environmental vulnerabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Current (2010) and critical agricultural nitrogen surplus.
Fig. 2: Estimated global boundaries for various nitrogen indicators.
Fig. 3: Spatial variation in global exceedance of nitrogen thresholds.
Fig. 4: Possibilities for respecting environmental thresholds by reducing agricultural nitrogen losses alone.
Fig. 5: Possibilities for crop production within the safe operating space for nitrogen.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data are available in the main text or Extended Data. Additional data, as well as a comprehensive mathematical description of the calculations, are provided in  Supplementary Information. All model input files as well as global maps of critical nitrogen surpluses, nitrogen inputs and their exceedances are provided via an online repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6395016. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The Python modelling code and additional materials are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Gruber, N. & Galloway, J. N. An Earth-system perspective of the global nitrogen cycle. Nature 451, 293–296 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–59 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Vries, W., Kros, J., Kroeze, C. & Seitzinger, S. P. Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 392–402 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kanter, D. R., Zhang, X. & Howard, C. M. Nitrogen and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Proc. 2016 International Nitrogen Initiative Conference, ‘Solutions to Improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency For The World (2016).

  6. Dobermann, A. Looking Forward to 2030: Nitrogen and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Proc. 2016 International Nitrogen Initiative Conference, ‘Solutions to Improve Nitrogen Use Efficiency For The World’ (2016).

  7. Erisman, J. W. J., Sutton, M. A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z. & Winiwarter, W. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat. Geosci. 1, 636–639 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Galloway, J. N. et al. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320, 889–892 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diaz, R. J. & Rosenberg, R. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321, 926–929 (2008).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Glibert, P. M. Eutrophication, harmful algae and biodiversity—challenging paradigms in a world of complex nutrient changes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 124, 591–606 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Erisman, J. W. et al. Consequences of human modification of the global nitrogen cycle. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 368, 20130116 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bobbink, R. et al. Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 20, 30–59 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bleeker, A., Hicks, W. K., Dentener, F., Galloway, J. & Erisman, J. W. N deposition as a threat to the world’s protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2280–2288 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ward, M. H. et al. Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, 1557 (2018).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Pozzer, A., Tsimpidi, A. P., Karydis, V. A., de Meij, A. & Lelieveld, J. Impact of agricultural emission reductions on fine-particulate matter and public health. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 12813–12826 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson, E. A. & Kanter, D. Inventories and scenarios of nitrous oxide emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 105012 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidson, E. A. Representative concentration pathways and mitigation scenarios for nitrous oxide. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 024005 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Conijn, J. G., Bindraban, P. S., Schröder, J. J. & Jongschaap, R. E. E. Can our global food system meet food demand within planetary boundaries? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251, 244–256 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Uwizeye, A. et al. Nitrogen emissions along global livestock supply chains. Nat. Food 1, 437–446 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 3, 200–208 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Popp, A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 151–155 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Perring, M. P., Mackay, A. W. & Blomqvist, L. Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 396–401 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lewis, S. L. We must set planetary boundaries wisely. Nature 485, 417 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heistermann, M. HESS opinions: a planetary boundary on freshwater use is misleading. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 3455–3461 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cole, M. J., Bailey, R. M. & New, M. G. Tracking sustainable development with a national barometer for South Africa using a downscaled ‘safe and just space’ framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4399–E4408 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Dao, H., Peduzzi, P. & Friot, D. National environmental limits and footprints based on the planetary boundaries framework: the case of Switzerland. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 49–57 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., Kuokkanen, A., Mikkilä, M. & Linnanen, L. Local and social facets of planetary boundaries: right to nutrients. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 104013 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Nykvist, B. et al. National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).

  34. Is Europe Living within the Limits of our Planet? An Assessment of Europe’s Environmental Footprints in Relation to Planetary Boundaries EEA Report No. 01/2020 (European Environmental Agency and Federal Office for the Environment, 2020).

  35. Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dalgaard, T. et al. Policies for agricultural nitrogen management-trends, challenges and prospects for improved efficiency in Denmark. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 115002 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Methods and Results, Executive Summary (OECD, 2001).

  38. Sustainable Development in the European Union. Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context 2019 edition https://doi.org/10.2785/4526 (EU, 2019).

  39. Beusen, A. H. W., Van Beek, L. P. H., Bouwman, A. F., Mogollón, J. M. & Middelburg, J. J. Coupling global models for hydrology and nutrient loading to simulate nitrogen and phosphorus retention in surface water—description of IMAGE-GNM and analysis of performance. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 4045–4067 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Heck, V., Hoff, H., Wirsenius, S., Meyer, C. & Kreft, H. Land use options for staying within the planetary boundaries—synergies and trade-offs between global and local sustainability goals. Glob. Environ. Change 49, 73–84 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schulte-Uebbing, L. & de Vries, W. Reconciling food production and environmental boundaries for nitrogen in the European Union. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147427 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. de Vries, W., Schulte-Uebbing, L., Kros, H., Voogd, J. C. & Louwagie, G. Spatially explicit boundaries for agricultural nitrogen inputs in the European Union to meet air and water quality targets. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147283 (2021).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yu, C. Q. et al. Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China. Nature 567, 516–520 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stehfest, E. et al. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with Image 3.0—Model Description and Policy Applications (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).

  46. Camargo, J. A. & Alonso, Á. Ecological and toxicological effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: a global assessment. Environ. Int. 32, 831–849 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Laane, R. W. P. M. Applying the critical load concept to the nitrogen load of the river Rhine to the Dutch coastal zone. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 62, 487–493 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Poikane, S. et al. Nutrient criteria for surface waters under the European Water Framework Directive: current state-of-the-art challenges and future outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 695, 133888 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-water. Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality Report No. WHO/SDE/WSH/07.01/16/Rev/1 (WHO, 2011).

  50. De Vries, W., Du, E., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Dentener, F. & Schulte-Uebbing, L. Global-scale impact of human nitrogen fixation on greenhouse gas emissions. Oxford Res. Encycl. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.13 (2017).

  51. Schulte-Uebbing, L. & De Vries, W. Global-scale impacts of nitrogen deposition on tree carbon sequestration in tropical, temperate, and boreal forests: a meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e416–e431 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gurmesa, G. A. et al. Retention of deposited ammonium and nitrate and its impact on the global forest carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 13, 880 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. De Vries, W., Du, E. & Butterbach-Bahl, K. Short and long-term impacts of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 9–10, 90–104 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang, R. et al. Global forest carbon uptake due to nitrogen and phosphorus deposition from 1850 to 2100. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 4854–4872 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lena, F., Schulte‐Uebbing, G.H. & de Vries, R. W. Experimental evidence shows minor contribution of nitrogen deposition to global forest carbon sequestration. Global Change Biol. 28, 899–917 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Putaud, J. P. et al. A European aerosol phenomenology—2: Chemical characteristics of particulate matter at kerbside, urban, rural and background sites in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 38, 2579–2595 (2004).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Bouwman, A. F. et al. Global trends and uncertainties in terrestrial denitrification and N2O emissions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 368, 20130112 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. De Vries, W. et al. Comparison of land nitrogen budgets for European agriculture by various modeling approaches. Environ. Pollut. 159, 3254–3268 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. van Grinsven, H. J. M. et al. Losses of ammonia and nitrate from agriculture and their effect on nitrogen recovery in the European Union and the United States between 1900 and 2050. J. Environ. Qual. 44, 356–367 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dentener, F. et al. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB4003 (2006).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Dentener, F. et al. in Nitrogen Deposition, Critical Loads and Biodiversity (eds Sutton, M. et al.) 7–22 (Springer, 2014).

  62. Mueller, N. D. et al. A tradeoff frontier for global nitrogen use and cereal production. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 054002 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rolinski, S. et al. Modeling vegetation and carbon dynamics of managed grasslands at the global scale with LPJmL 3.6. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 429–451 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  64. Population, total. World Bank https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?view=chart (2020).

  65. Westhoek, H. J., Rood, G. A., Berg, M. V. D. & Janse, J. H. The protein puzzle: the consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. Eur. J. Food Res. Rev. 1, 123–144 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Galloway, J. N. & Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change. Ambio 31, 64–71 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank L. Lassaletta and B. Bodirsky for suggestions on improving the manuscript. L.F.S.-U. acknowledges funding by the NWO (project number 022.003.009), provided by a project initiated by the SENSE Research School. W.d.V., A.F.B. and A.H.W.B. acknowledge funding by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) through the project ‘Towards an International Nitrogen Management System’ (INMS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    L. F. Schulte-Uebbing & W. de Vries

  2. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

    L. F. Schulte-Uebbing, A. H. W. Beusen & A. F. Bouwman

  3. Department of Earth Sciences—Geochemistry, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    A. H. W. Beusen & A. F. Bouwman

  4. Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    W. de Vries

Authors
  1. L. F. Schulte-Uebbing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. H. W. Beusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. F. Bouwman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the concept and design of the study, L.F.S.-U. and A.H.W.B. built the model to calculate critical surplus and inputs, A.H.W.B. provided input data for the calculations, L.F.S.-U. performed all analyses and made figures, L.F.S.-U., A.F.B. and W.d.V. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. F. Schulte-Uebbing.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Benjamin Bodirsky, Carly Stevens and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

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 Current and critical N inputs and outputs.

Global current (year 2010) nitrogen (N) inputs (subdivided into fertilizer, BNF, manure and deposition) and N outputs (subdivided into N uptake and N surplus) and critical N inputs and outputs related to three thresholds (N deposition to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, N load to surface water to limit eutrophication, and N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards), and for all thresholds combined. To convert inputs and outputs in MtN yr−1 to average rates in kgN ha−1 yr−1, divide by 2.3. Results split into arable land and intensively managed grassland are shown in Supplementary Fig. 2.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Exceedance of critical nitrogen surplus per impact.

Spatial variation in the exceedance of critical nitrogen (N) surplus in agricultural land by current surplus related to a, all thresholds combined (corresponds to Fig. 3a in main text), b, critical deposition to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, c, critical N load to surface water to limit eutrophication, and d, critical N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards. Positive values indicate by how much agricultural N surplus needs to decrease in order to avoid exceeding environmental thresholds. Negative values indicate by how much agricultural N surplus can increase to allow additional N inputs to close yield gaps without exceeding environmental thresholds. Grid cells with no agricultural land are shown in grey. Separate results for arable land and intensively managed grassland are shown in Supplementary Fig. 3.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Current and critical nitrogen losses and exceedances.

Spatial variation in a–c, current nitrogen (N) losses to air and water, d–f, critical N losses to air and water and g–i, exceedance of current by critical N losses. a, Current total N (NOx + NH3) emissions, b, critical N emissions to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, and c, exceedance of current by critical N emissions. d, Current total N load to surface water from all sources (both agricultural and other sources), e, critical N load to surface water related to eutrophication impacts, and f, exceedance of current by critical N load to surface water. g, Current total N leaching to groundwater, h, critical N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards, and i, exceedance of current by critical N leaching to groundwater. Grid cells with no agricultural land are shown in grey.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Threshold exceedance per impact type.

Exceedance of thresholds for three nitrogen (N)-related environmental impacts (critical deposition to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, critical N load to surface water to limit eutrophication, and critical N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards) for a, arable land and b, intensively managed grassland. Colours indicate how many and which of the thresholds are exceeded: none (white), one threshold (magenta, cyan, yellow), two thresholds (red, blue, green) or all three thresholds (black); see legend for impact type per colour. Grey = areas with no arable land / intensively managed grassland.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Option space for agricultural N loss reductions.

Possibilities for respecting environmental thresholds by reducing agricultural nitrogen (N) losses alone on (i), arable land and (ii), intensively managed grassland for a, all thresholds combined, b, critical deposition to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, c, critical N load to surface water to limit eutrophication and d, critical N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards. Green = regions where threshold is not exceeded (reducing N losses not necessary), purple = regions where threshold is exceeded and reducing agricultural N losses is sufficient to respect threshold, orange = regions where threshold is exceeded and reducing agricultural N losses alone is not sufficient to respect threshold (threshold exceeded by non-agricultural N losses alone). Bars show the total fraction of agricultural land within each category. Grey = no arable land / intensively managed grassland.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Critical versus current N losses from different sources.

Ratio between current (year 2010) N losses from non-agricultural sources and total critical N losses. a, Ratio between current N load from wastewater and critical N load to surface water (to avoid eutrophication impacts). b, Ratio between current N load from erosion (both from agricultural land and natural land) and critical N load to surface water. c, Ratio between current N load from allochthonous organic matter and total critical N load to surface water. d, Ratio between current NOx emissions and total critical N emissions to limit deposition in terrestrial ecosystems and resulting biodiversity loss. A ratio > 1 indicates that N losses from an individual source alone exceed thresholds, and thus that thresholds for surface water N concentrations or N deposition are exceeded even at zero inputs to agriculture. Grey = no agricultural land.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Potential for regional crop production within N boundaries.

Crop production that can be obtained while respecting boundaries for all three N-related thresholds simultaneously, expressed as a share of a, current regional crop production and b, minimum regional crop demand under a balanced diet as estimated with Eq. 3 (see Methods), and (i) at current N use efficiency (NUE) and (ii) if NUE is increased to 0.90 everywhere. Results shown are for the assumption of constant non-agricultural N losses and a legacy effect (Scenario S1, see Fig. 5).

Extended Data Fig. 8 Exceedance of current by critical N surplus by region.

Exceedance of current (year 2010) N surplus by critical N surplus, for all agricultural land, aggregated to the level of 26 world regions represented in the IMAGE model. Percentages indicate by how much, on average, current surplus needs to decrease (red) in order to respect environmental thresholds or may increase (green) to allow for additional N inputs to close yield gaps while still respecting thresholds for a, all thresholds combined, b, critical deposition to limit terrestrial biodiversity loss, c, critical N load to surface water to limit eutrophication and d, critical N leaching to groundwater to meet drinking water standards. Current and critical N surpluses for each world region are shown in Extended Data Table 2.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Schematic illustrations of the modelling approach.

a, Schematic representation of the steps for back-calculating critical N surplus and critical N input from critical impacts. b, Simplified schematic representation of the calculations of N losses in the IMAGE-GNM model used in the back-calculation of critical agricultural N surplus and N input. Boxes represent different land-use types (1 = arable land, = intensively managed grassland, 3 = extensively managed grassland, 4 = natural land).

Extended Data Table 1 Share of agricultural land where thresholds are exceeded
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Current (year 2010) and critical N surplus (all agricultural land) in view of thresholds for three environmental impacts, and for all impacts combined
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Discussion, Figs. 1–6 and Tables 1–6.

Peer Review File

Source data

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulte-Uebbing, L.F., Beusen, A.H.W., Bouwman, A.F. et al. From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 610, 507–512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2

This article is cited by

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

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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