In the context of compromises between land use and biodiversity, LMU geographers have simulated land saving capacities for farming.
With increasing worldwide demand for agricultural commodities for usage as feed, bioenergy, and food, pressure on land is increasing. At the very same time, land is an essential resource for dealing with the principal difficulties of the 21st century– the loss of biodiversity and global climate change. One solution to this dispute could be to increase farming performance and therefore minimize the needed cropland. In an interdisciplinary model-based study, LMU geographers Julia Schneider and Dr. Florian Zabel, together with scientists from the Universities of Basel and Hohenheim, have actually analyzed how much acreage might be saved globally through more effective production methods and what economic impacts– for instance, on costs and trade– this would have. As the authors reported in the journal PLOS ONE, their modeling showed that under optimized conditions up to practically half of existing cropland could be saved. As a result of increased performance, the costs for agricultural items would fall in all regions and global farming production would increase by 2.8%.
” The beginning point for our work was a current clinical dispute as to whether it is better for securing biodiversity to cultivate more thoroughly on more land or more intensively on less land, with all the particular pros and cons,” says Schneider. To answer this concern, the scientists used a process-based biophysical crop model for 15 internationally important food and energy crops to evaluated what land conserving capacity could be obtained by agricultural augmentation.
Almost half the cropland would be enough
Regionally, the land conserving possible varies: In Europe and North America, for example, there is little land conserving capacity, as farming is currently greatly industrialized and the degree of climax is extremely high. More effective production could for that reason lead to big land conserving capacities in these areas. Relating to private crops, the researchers recognized particularly large land conserving capacities above all for grains such as sorghum and millet, which are presently mainly cultivated by smallholder farmers in areas with large yield spaces.
As their next action, the researchers integrated the regional land conserving potentials into an economic design developed by the Universities of Basel and Hohenheim, in order to examine the financial effects of the cropland reduction. “This exposed that the more effective usage of land would lead to a fall in costs in all areas and for all crops,” states Schneider.
Greatest economic impacts in regions with high pressure on land
There were big variations in the financial effects of land conserving in between the examined regions. “Surprisingly, we discovered that the greatest financial impacts– that is, the biggest modifications in prices, production, and trade circulations– did not take place in the regions with the biggest land saving potential, however in densely populated regions with high pressure on land, such as in Malaysia and Indonesia and parts of South America. In these countries, land is a particularly scarce and for that reason a pricey resource and hence makes up a big part of the overall production costs,” states Schneider. Through globalized agricultural markets and worldwide trade, the results of land conserving might be experienced in spatially distant areas. Globally falling prices, for instance, could cause an increase in imports of around 30 percent in the Middle East and parts of North Africa, as they end up being less expensive than domestic production.
The computed capacities for land saving might serve as a beginning point to examine the potential for alternative uses of freed-up land, such as carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation to alleviate environment modification. By quantifying the carbon sequestration potential on saved land through the recovery of natural greenery, the researchers found that additionally between 114 Gt and 151 Gt CO2 could possibly be sequestered on the conserved land. Other alternatives for alternative usages of the saved land might be the cultivation of bioenergy crops or the security of biodiversity, e.g. by setting up nature reserves and similar procedures.
Referral: “Global cropland might be almost cut in half: Assessment of land saving capacities under different techniques and implications for farming markets” by Julia M. Schneider, Florian Zabel, Franziska Schünemann, Ruth Delzeit and Wolfram Mauser, 22 February 2022, PLOS ONE.DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0263063.
” The beginning point for our work was a current scientific argument as to whether it is better for securing biodiversity to cultivate more extensively on more land or more intensively on less land, with all the respective pros and cons,” states Schneider. Regionally, the land conserving prospective varies: In Europe and North America, for example, there is little land saving potential, as farming is currently heavily industrialized and the degree of augmentation is extremely high. “Surprisingly, we found that the strongest economic results– that is, the biggest changes in costs, production, and trade circulations– did not happen in the areas with the biggest land conserving potential, but in largely populated areas with high pressure on land, such as in Malaysia and Indonesia and parts of South America. The computed potentials for land saving might serve as a beginning point to assess the capacity for alternative usages of freed-up land, such as carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation to alleviate environment change. By measuring the carbon sequestration capacity on saved land through the recovery of natural vegetation, the researchers discovered that in addition in between 114 Gt and 151 Gt CO2 could possibly be sequestered on the saved land.