Cited by 352Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesAgricultural and Food Production Studies

Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation

Open access
Erb, Karl-Heinz, Lauk, Christian, Kastner, Thomas, Mayer, Andreas, Theurl, Michaela C., Haberl, Helmut·2016·Nature Communications

Abstract

Safeguarding the world’s remaining forests is a high-priority goal. We assess the biophysical option space for feeding the world in 2050 in a hypothetical zero-deforestation world. We systematically combine realistic assumptions on future yields, agricultural areas, livestock feed and human diets. For each scenario, we determine whether the supply of crop products meets the demand and whether the grazing intensity stays within plausible limits. We find that many options exist to meet the global food supply in 2050 without deforestation, even at low crop-yield levels. Within the option space, individual scenarios differ greatly in terms of biomass harvest, cropland demand and grazing intensity, depending primarily on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of human diets. Grazing constraints strongly limit the option space. Without the option to encroach into natural or semi-natural land, trade volumes will rise in scenarios with globally converging diets, thereby decreasing the food self-sufficiency of many developing regions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms11382

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although agricultural intensification can harm climate, biodiversity, and human health, yields can often be increased without these costs.

    “Although agricultural intensification can have detrimental effects on climate, biodiversity and human health 2,[35][36][37][38][39] , yields can often be increased without incurring these costs 37 .”

    From Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration (2020) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Discussion (page not available) says increased yields can save land and potentially increase carbon storage. It also says those benefits may be offset by agricultural emissions and that the study cannot establish the sustainability of its scenarios. It therefore does not support the claim that yields can often be increased without climate, biodiversity, or human-health costs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends Vol. 1, Island Press (2005).
  2. IAASTD. Agriculture at a crossroad. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Global Report Island Press (2009).
  3. Saugier B., Roy J. & Mooney H. A. in Terrestrial Global Productivity (eds Roy J., Saugier B., Mooney H. A. 543– 557Academic Press (2001).
  4. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios Volume 2, Island Press (2005).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erb, K.-H., Lauk, C., Kastner, T., Mayer, A., Theurl, M. C., & Haberl, H.
Affiliations
University of Klagenfurt (AT)
Corresponding author
Erb, Karl-Heinz
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2016-04-19
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
11382-11382
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2339350354
Cited by
352
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 17 · 2012: 1
FWCI
39.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • European Commission (283093)
  • Austrian Science Fund (263522, P21012 G11, P 21012)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (263522)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Food Production Studies
Keywords
zero deforestation, global food supply, crop yield, grazing intensity, animal feed, human diet, food self-sufficiency, food trade, land use, 2050 scenarios
MeSH terms
Crop Production, Animal Husbandry, Conservation of Natural Resources, Food Supply, Forecasting, Humans, Models, Statistical, Biomass, Forests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review