Cited by 7,692Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactClimate change impacts on agricultureLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture

Open access
Tilman, David, Balzer, Christian, Hill, Jason, Befort, Belinda L.·2011·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Global food demand is increasing rapidly, as are the environmental impacts of agricultural expansion. Here, we project global demand for crop production in 2050 and evaluate the environmental impacts of alternative ways that this demand might be met. We find that per capita demand for crops, when measured as caloric or protein content of all crops combined, has been a similarly increasing function of per capita real income since 1960. This relationship forecasts a 100-110% increase in global crop demand from 2005 to 2050. Quantitative assessments show that the environmental impacts of meeting this demand depend on how global agriculture expands. If current trends of greater agricultural intensification in richer nations and greater land clearing (extensification) in poorer nations were to continue, ~1 billion ha of land would be cleared globally by 2050, with CO(2)-C equivalent greenhouse gas emissions reaching ~3 Gt y(-1) and N use ~250 Mt y(-1) by then. In contrast, if 2050 crop demand was met by moderate intensification focused on existing croplands of underyielding nations, adaptation and transfer of high-yielding technologies to these croplands, and global technological improvements, our analyses forecast land clearing of only ~0.2 billion ha, greenhouse gas emissions of ~1 Gt y(-1), and global N use of ~225 Mt y(-1). Efficient management practices could substantially lower nitrogen use. Attainment of high yields on existing croplands of underyielding nations is of great importance if global crop demand is to be met with minimal environmental impacts.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1116437108

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Scientific literature warns about environmental, social, and economic limitations of the current intensive agricultural model.

    “Scientific literature abounds to warn about the environmental, social, and economic limitations of the current intensive agricultural model [1,2].”

    From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Results and Discussion describe major environmental impacts of agricultural expansion, and the Conclusions warn that continuing past trends would have serious long-term environmental consequences. The paper also discusses investment needs and a more equitable food supply, but it does not establish social and economic limitations of the current intensive agricultural model as the claim suggests. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The majority of studies (47) used simulation models, 9 used statistical extrapolation, and 1 mainly used expert input.

    “The majority of studies (n = 47) employ simulation models, while some use statistical extrapolation approaches (n = 9) that use regression techniques to estimate future food security 1,13 .Only one study 2 mainly used expert input to prepare the projections.”
  • Tilman et al. implicitly assume that food and feed have the same relationship with income per capita.

    “The study implicitly assumes that food and feed have the same relationship with income per capita.”
  • Not accounting for potential efficiency improvements in the livestock sector might explain why Tilman et al.'s food consumption projections are nearly twice as large as those in most other studies.

    “Not accounting for potential efficiency improvements in the livestock sector might explain why the food consumption projections in Tilman et al. 1 are nearly twice as large as those in most other studies.”
  • In contrast to most other studies that use diet projections, Tilman et al. approximate food consumption by total crop calories including food and feed, resulting in much higher per capita projections.

    “In contrast to most other studies, which use diet projections, food consumption is approximated by total crop calories (including food and feed), resulting in much higher per capita projections.”

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: 1

  1. Alexandratos N (2009) How to feed the world in 2050. Proceedings of a Technical Meeting of Experts (FAO, Rome), pp 1-32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2011-11-21
Volume
108
Issue
50
Pages
20260-20264
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2013414890
Cited by
7,692
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 576 · 2025: 706 · 2024: 732 · 2023: 681 · 2022: 765 · 2021: 760 · 2020: 737 · 2019: 612 · 2018: 517 · 2017: 423 · 2016: 367 · 2015: 303 · 2014: 252 · 2013: 178 · 2012: 74
FWCI
142.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0620652)
  • University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
global food demand, sustainable intensification, agricultural expansion, land clearing, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen utilization, crop yield, per capita income, food security, technology transfer, environmental impact of agriculture, 2050 projections
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Climate, Conservation of Natural Resources, Food Supply, Crops, Agricultural, Internationality, Gross Domestic Product

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