skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Published Article: The environmental and socioeconomic trade-offs of importing crops to meet domestic food demand in China
Title: The environmental and socioeconomic trade-offs of importing crops to meet domestic food demand in China
Abstract

China increasingly relies on agricultural imports, driven by its rising population and income, as well as dietary shifts. International trade offers an opportunity to relieve pressures on resource depletion and pollution, such as nitrogen (N) pollution, while it poses multiple socioeconomic challenges, such as food availability. To quantify such trade-offs considering the roles of different crop types, we developed a unique crop-specific N budget database and assessed the impacts of the crop trade on multiple sustainability concerns including N pollution caused by crop production, crop land area, independence of food supply, and trade expenditures. We quantified the ‘virtual’ N inputs and harvested areas, which are the amount of N inputs and land resources used in exporting countries for China’s crop import. In addition, we proposed the concepts of ‘alternative’ N inputs and harvested area to quantify the resources needed if imported crops were produced in China. By comparing results from ‘alternative’ and ‘virtual’ concepts, we assessed the role of trade in Chinese crops over the past 30 years (i.e. 1986–2015) in alleviating N pollution and saving cropland in China and the world. Crop imports accounted for 31% of Chinese crop N consumption in 2015, and these crop imports eased more » the need for an additional cropland area of 62 million ha. It also avoided an N surplus by 56 and 36 Tg (Tg = 109kg) for China and the world respectively but led to $621 billion crop trade expenditures over the 30 year period. The N pollution damage avoided by crop imports in economic terms was priced at $22 ± 16 billion in 2015, which is lower than the crop trade expenditures but may be surpassed in the future with the development of the Chinese economy. Optimizing a crop trade portfolio can shift domestic production from N-intensive crop production (e.g. maize, fruits, and vegetables) to N-efficient crop production (e.g. soybeans), and consequently mitigate an N surplus by up to 12%. Improving N use efficiency for individual crops can further increase the mitigation potential of N surplus to 30%–50%, but requires technology advancement and policy incentives.

« less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1739823
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10307654
Journal Name:
Environmental Research Letters
Volume:
14
Issue:
9
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Article No. 094021
ISSN:
1748-9326
Publisher:
IOP Publishing
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Environmental Research Communications)
    Abstract

    Urban sustainability initiatives often encompass such goals as increasing local food production, closing nutrient loops through recycling organic waste, and reducing water pollution. However, there are potential tradeoffs among these desired outcomes that may constrain progress. For example, expansion of urban agriculture for food production may create hotspots of nutrient pollution if nutrient recycling is inefficient. We used gardener and urban farmer survey data from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Minnesota, USA) to characterize phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) inputs and harvest in order to determine nutrient use efficiencies, and measured soil P concentrations at a subset of these sites to test whether excess soil P was common. All survey respondents (n = 142) reported using some form of soil amendment, with plant-based composts being the most common. Median application rates were 300 kg P/ha and 1400 kg N/ha. Median nutrient use efficiencies were low (2.5% for P, 5.0% for N) and there was only a weak positive relationship between P and N inputs and P and N harvested in crop biomass. Garden soils had a median Bray P value of 80 ppm, showing a buildup of plant-available P far exceeding recommended levels. Our results show that urban gardens are characterizedmore »by high nutrient inputs and inefficient conversion of these nutrients into crops, leading to buildup and potential loss of P and N from garden soils. Although urban gardens make up only 0.1% of land area in the Twin Cities, compost application to these urban gardens still constitutes one of the largest inputs of P to the watershed. In order to maximize desired outcomes from the expansion of urban agriculture (UA), it will be necessary to target soil amendments based on soil nutrient levels and crop nutrient demand.

    « less
  2. ; ; ; ( )
    Abstract
    Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems mayMore>>
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al ( , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
    A limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan could ignite fires large enough to emit more than 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere. Climate model simulations have shown severe resulting climate perturbations with declines in global mean temperature by 1.8 °C and precipitation by 8%, for at least 5 y. Here we evaluate impacts for the global food system. Six harmonized state-of-the-art crop models show that global caloric production from maize, wheat, rice, and soybean falls by 13 (±1)%, 11 (±8)%, 3 (±5)%, and 17 (±2)% over 5 y. Total single-year losses of 12 (±4)% quadruple the largest observed historical anomaly and exceed impacts caused by historic droughts and volcanic eruptions. Colder temperatures drive losses more than changes in precipitation and solar radiation, leading to strongest impacts in temperate regions poleward of 30°N, including the United States, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 y. Integrated food trade network analyses show that domestic reserves and global trade can largely buffer the production anomaly in the first year. Persistent multiyear losses, however, would constrain domestic food availability and propagate to the Global South, especially to food-insecure countries. By year 5, maize and wheat availability would decrease by 13% globally andmore »by more than 20% in 71 countries with a cumulative population of 1.3 billion people. In view of increasing instability in South Asia, this study shows that a regional conflict using <1% of the worldwide nuclear arsenal could have adverse consequences for global food security unmatched in modern history.« less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution)
    Agricultural landscapes can be managed to protect biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services. One approach to achieve this is to restore native perennial vegetation within croplands. Where rowcrops have displaced prairie, as in the US Midwest, restoration of native perennial vegetation can align with crops in so called “prairie strips.” We tested the effect of prairie strips in addition to other management practices on a variety of taxa and on a suite of ecosystem services. To do so, we worked within a 33-year-old experiment that included treatments that varied methods of agricultural management across a gradient of land use intensity. In the two lowest intensity crop management treatments, we introduced prairie strips that occupied 5% of crop area. We addressed three questions: (1) What are the effects of newly established prairie strips on the spillover of biodiversity and ecosystem services into cropland? (2) How does time since prairie strip establishment affect biodiversity and ecosystem services? (3) What are the tradeoffs and synergies among biodiversity conservation, non-provisioning ecosystem services, and provisioning ecosystem services (crop yield) across a land use intensity gradient (which includes prairie strips)? Within prairie strip treatments, where sampling effort occurred within and at increasing distance from strips, dung beetlemore »abundance, spider abundance and richness, active carbon, decomposition, and pollination decreased with distance from prairie strips, and this effect increased between the first and second year. Across the entire land use intensity gradient, treatments with prairie strips and reduced chemical inputs had higher butterfly abundance, spider abundance, and pollination services. In addition, soil organic carbon, butterfly richness, and spider richness increased with a decrease in land use intensity. Crop yield in one treatment with prairie strips was equal to that of the highest intensity management, even while including the area taken out of production. We found no effects of strips on ant biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions (N 2 O and CH 4 ). Our results show that, even in early establishment, prairie strips and lower land use intensity can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services without a disproportionate loss of crop yield.« less
  5. ; ; ( , Water)
    Efficient irrigation technologies, which seem to promise reduced production costs and water consumption in heavily irrigated areas, may instead be driving increased irrigation use in areas that were not traditionally irrigated. As a result, the total dependence on supplemental irrigation for crop production and revenue is steadily increasing across the contiguous United States. Quantifying this dependence has been hampered by a lack of comprehensive irrigated and dryland yield and harvested area data outside of major irrigated regions, despite the importance and long history of irrigation applications in agriculture. This study used a linear regression model to disaggregate lumped agricultural statistics and estimate average irrigated and dryland yields at the state level for five major row crops: corn, cotton, hay, soybeans, and wheat. For 1945–2015, we quantified crop production, irrigation enhancement revenue, and irrigated and dryland areas in both intensively irrigated and marginally-dependent states, where both irrigated and dryland farming practices are implemented. In 2015, we found that irrigating just the five commodity crops enhanced revenue by ~$7 billion across all states with irrigation. In states with both irrigated and dryland practices, 23% of total produced area relied on irrigation, resulting in 7% more production than from dryland practices. There wasmore »a clear response to increasing biofuel demand, with the addition of more than 3.6 million ha of irrigated corn and soybeans in the last decade in marginally-dependent states. Since 1945, we estimate that yield enhancement due to irrigation has resulted in over $465 billion in increased revenue across the contiguous United States (CONUS). Example applications of this dataset include estimating historical water use, evaluating the effects of environmental policies, developing new resource management strategies, economic risk analyses, and developing tools for farmer decision making.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email