Impacts of the global food system on terrestrial biodiversity from land use and climate change.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jul 2024
09 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
03
05
2023
accepted:
27
06
2024
medline:
10
7
2024
pubmed:
10
7
2024
entrez:
9
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The global food system is a key driver of land-use and climate change which in turn drive biodiversity change. Developing sustainable food systems is therefore critical to reversing biodiversity loss. We use the multi-regional input-output model EXIOBASE to estimate the biodiversity impacts embedded within the global food system in 2011. Using models that capture regional variation in the sensitivity of biodiversity both to land use and climate change, we calculate the land-driven and greenhouse gas-driven footprints of food using two metrics of biodiversity: local species richness and rarity-weighted species richness. We show that the footprint of land area underestimates biodiversity impact in more species-rich regions and that our metric of rarity-weighted richness places a greater emphasis on biodiversity costs in Central and South America. We find that methane emissions are responsible for 70% of the overall greenhouse gas-driven biodiversity footprint and that, in several regions, emissions from a single year's food production are associated with global biodiversity loss equivalent to 2% or more of that region's total land-driven biodiversity loss. The measures we present are relatively simple to calculate and could be incorporated into decision-making and environmental impact assessments by governments and businesses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38982053
doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49999-z
pii: 10.1038/s41467-024-49999-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Greenhouse Gases
0
Methane
OP0UW79H66
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5750Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. (Bonn, Germany, 2019).
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).
pubmed: 27510207
doi: 10.1038/536143a
Schipper, A. M. et al. Projecting terrestrial biodiversity intactness with GLOBIO 4. Glob. Chang Biol. 26, 760–771 (2020).
pubmed: 31680366
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14848
Di Marco, M. et al. Projecting impacts of global climate and land-use scenarios on plant biodiversity using compositional-turnover modelling. Glob. Chang Biol. 25, 2763–2778 (2019).
pubmed: 31009149
doi: 10.1111/gcb.14663
Newbold, T. Future effects of climate and land-use change on terrestrial vertebrate community diversity under different scenarios. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20180792 (2018).
pubmed: 29925617
pmcid: 6030534
Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 589–606 (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x
FAOStat. Land Cover. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/LC (2022).
Mbow, C. et al. Food Security. In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Shukla, P. R. et al. (eds), Ingervonmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019).
Rosenzweig, C., N Tubiello, F., Sandalow, D., Benoit, P. & N Hayek, M. Finding and fixing food system emissions: the double helix of science and policy. Environmental Research Letters 16. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0134 (2021).
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
pubmed: 37117443
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Ivanovich, C. C., Sun, T., Gordon, D. R. & Ocko, I. B. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 297–302 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01605-8
Leclere, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
pubmed: 32908312
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y
Lynch, J., Cain, M., Frame, D. & Pierrehumbert, R. Agriculture’s contribution to climate change and role in mitigation is distinct from predominantly fossil CO2-emitting sectors. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 518039 (2021).
pubmed: 33644695
pmcid: 7116829
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.518039
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Rapid growth in agricultural trade: effects on global area efficiency and the role of management. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034015 (2014).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034015
FAO. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. Agricultural markets and sustainable development: Global value chains, smallholder farmers and digital innovations. (FAO, 2020).
Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob. Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.013
Kitzes, J. et al. Consumption-based conservation targeting: linking biodiversity loss to upstream demand through a global wildlife footprint. Conserv Lett. 10, 531–538 (2017).
pubmed: 29104616
doi: 10.1111/con4.12321
Balmford, A. et al. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustainability 1, 477–485 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0138-5
Miller, R. E. & Blair, P. D. Input-output Analysis: Foundations and Extension. (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Kitzes, J. An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources 2, 489–503 (2013).
doi: 10.3390/resources2040489
Roux, N., Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Does agricultural trade reduce pressure on land ecosystems? Decomposing drivers of the embodied human appropriation of net primary production. Ecol. Econ. 181, 106915 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106915
Peters, G. & Hertwich, E. G. CO
pubmed: 18441780
doi: 10.1021/es072023k
Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 109, 3232–3237 (2012).
pubmed: 22331890
pmcid: 3295316
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109936109
Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).
pubmed: 22678290
doi: 10.1038/nature11145
Moran, D. & Kanemoto, K. Identifying species threat hotspots from global supply chains. Nat. Ecol. Evolution 1, 0023 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41559-016-0023
Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., de Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).
pubmed: 26197362
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02507
Marques, A. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).
pubmed: 30833755
pmcid: 6443044
doi: 10.1038/s41559-019-0824-3
Marquardt, S. G. et al. Consumption-based biodiversity footprints–do different indicators yield different results? Ecol. Indic. 103, 461–470 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.022
Wilting, H. C., Schipper, A. M., Bakkenes, M., Meijer, J. R. & Huijbregts, M. A. Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: a global-scale footprint analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 3298–3306 (2017).
pubmed: 28072521
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05296
Alkemade, R. et al. GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12, 374–390 (2009).
doi: 10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5
Newbold, T., Oppenheimer, P., Etard, A. & Williams, J. J. Tropical and mediterranean biodiversity is disproportionately sensitive to land-use and climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1630–1638 (2020).
pubmed: 32929240
doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01303-0
Martins, I. S. & Pereira, H. M. Improving extinction projections across scales and habitats using the countryside species-area relationship. Sci. Rep. 7, 12899 (2017).
pubmed: 29018229
pmcid: 5635007
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-13059-y
Hillebrand, H. et al. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: consequences for conservation and monitoring. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 169–184 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12959
Chichorro, F., Juslén, A. & Cardoso, P. A review of the relation between species traits and extinction risk. Biol. Conserv. 237, 220–229 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.001
Smith, P. & Gregory, P. J. Climate change and sustainable food production. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72, 21–28 (2013).
pubmed: 23146244
doi: 10.1017/S0029665112002832
Giljum, S. et al. The impacts of data deviations between MRIO models on material footprints: a comparison of EXIOBASE, Eora, and ICIO. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 946–958 (2019).
pubmed: 31598061
pmcid: 6774327
doi: 10.1111/jiec.12833
World Bank. Data Bank, https://databank.worldbank.org , (2021).
Bjelle, E. L. et al. Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade. J. Econ. Struct. 9, 14 (2020).
pubmed: 32117682
pmcid: 7021151
doi: 10.1186/s40008-020-0182-y
Chaudhary, A., Carrasco, L. R. & Kastner, T. Linking national wood consumption with global biodiversity and ecosystem service losses. Sci. Total Environ. 586, 985–994 (2017).
pubmed: 28222925
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.078
Sun, Z., Behrens, P., Tukker, A., Bruckner, M. & Scherer, L. Shared and environmentally just responsibility for global biodiversity loss. Ecological Economics 194, 107339 (2022).
Bruckner, M., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S. & Giljum, S. Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: a review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods. Ecol. Econ. 114, 11–21 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.008
Kastner, T. et al. Cropland area embodied in international trade: contradictory results from different approaches. Ecol. Econ. 104, 140–144 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.003
Cain, M. et al. Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2, 29 (2019).
pubmed: 31656858
pmcid: 6814445
doi: 10.1038/s41612-019-0086-4
Kozicka, M. et al. Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives. Nat. Commun. 14, 5316 (2023).
pubmed: 37699877
pmcid: 10497520
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2
Dimbleby, H. National Food Strategy Independent Review: The Plan. https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/ (2021).
CBD. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222 (2022).
Addison, P. F. et al. Bringing sustainability to life: a framework to guide biodiversity indicator development for business performance management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29, 3303–3313 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/bse.2573
Fuchs, R., Brown, C. & Rounsevell, M. Europe’s Green Deal offshores environmental damage to other nations. Nature 586, 671–673 (2020).
pubmed: 33106645
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02991-1
International food policy research institute. global spatially-disaggregated crop production statistics data for 2010 Version 2.0 MapSPAM (ed) International Food Policy Research Institute. Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PRFF8V (2019).
Barlow, J. et al. The future of hyperdiverse tropical ecosystems. Nature 559, 517–526 (2018).
pubmed: 30046075
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0301-1
Kehoe, L. et al. Inclusion, transparency, and enforcement: how the EU-mercosur trade agreement fails the sustainability test. One Earth 3, 268–272 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.08.013
Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: Developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. Journal of Industrial Ecology https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12715 (2018).
Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012). 490:254-257.
pubmed: 22932270
doi: 10.1038/nature11420
Steen-Olsen, K., Owen, A., Hertwich, E. G. & Lenzen, M. Effects of sector aggregation on CO
doi: 10.1080/09535314.2014.934325
Lenzen, M. Aggregation versus disaggregation in input-output analysis of the environment. Economic Syst. Res. 23, 73–89 (2011).
doi: 10.1080/09535314.2010.548793
Merciai, S. & Heijungs, R. Balance issues in monetary input-output tables. Ecol. Econ. 102, 69–74 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.016
de Koning, A. et al. Effect of aggregation and disaggregation on embodied material use of products in input-output analysis. Ecol. Econ. 116, 289–299 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.008
Tukker, A. et al. Towards robust, authoratitive assessments of environmental impacts embodied in trade: current state and recommendations. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 585–598 (2018).
Chandrakumar, C., McLaren, S., Malik, A., Ramilan, T. & Lenzen, M. Understanding New Zealand’s consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions: an application of multi-regional input-output analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1323–1332 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11367-019-01673-z
FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050. (Rome, Italy, https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf 2009).
Oliveira, J. et al. Choosing pasture maps: An assessment of pasture land classification definitions and a case study of Brazil. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2020.102205 (2020).
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochemical Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
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. Biogeochemical Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).
Hijmans, R. J. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.4–5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2020).
Bivand, R. rgdal: Bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library. R package version 1.5–23, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal (2021).
ESRI. Countries WGS84. Retrieved from https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/a21fdb46d23e4ef896f31475217cbb08_1/data (2015).
The nature conservancy. terrestrial ecoregions. https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/b1636d640ede4d6ca8f5e369f2dc368b/about (2019).
IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. version 2020-2. https://www.Iucnredlist.org (2020).
BirdLife International. BirdLife Data Zone. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis (2020).
Meiri, S. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation, Dryad. https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.83s7k (2017).
Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).
pubmed: 28993667
doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0332-2
Etard, A., Morrill, S. & Newbold, T. Global gaps in trait data for terrestrial vertebrates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 2143–2158 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/geb.13184
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).
pubmed: 28070282
doi: 10.1002/ece3.2579
Hudson, L. N. et al. The 2016 release of the PREDICTS database (ed) Natural History Museum https://doi.org/10.5519/0066354 (2016).
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2021).
Joos, F. et al. Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2793–2825 (2013).
doi: 10.5194/acp-13-2793-2013
Shine, K. P., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Hailemariam, K. & Stuber, N. Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim. Change 68, 281–302 (2005).
doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-1146-9
Shine, K. P., Derwent, R. G., Wuebbles, D. J. & Morcrette, J.-J. In Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., &Ephraums, J. J. (eds) 41–68 (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).
Hijmans, R., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
doi: 10.1002/joc.1276
CountryEconomy.com. https://countryeconomy.com/demography/population/taiwan?year=2011 (2021).
Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4588235 (2021).