High-resolution mapping identifies where food production causes the greatest losses of biodiversity and natural carbon storage—and where targeted action could deliver the largest gains.
Around two-thirds of the biodiversity loss and decline in natural carbon storage associated with global agriculture are concentrated on just one-third of the world’s agricultural land, a new study has found.
Researchers from Leiden University’s Institute of Environmental Sciences combined data on farmland, biodiversity, carbon storage and food production to identify where agriculture places the greatest pressure on nature and the climate.
The study, led by Baoxiao Liu and published in Nature Food, also linked those environmental effects to individual food products.
Agricultural Impacts Are Highly Concentrated
Agriculture occupies more than 40% of the planet’s habitable land and is a major contributor to climate change and biodiversity loss. Its environmental effects, however, are distributed unevenly, according to a press release.
The researchers identified major impact hotspots in Mexico and Central America, parts of Brazil, West Africa, India, China and Southeast Asia.
Many of these regions either support intensive agricultural production or contain ecosystems that naturally hold large amounts of carbon and sustain high levels of biodiversity.
“These are mainly regions where agriculture is either very intensive or takes place in ecosystems that naturally store large amounts of carbon and are rich in biodiversity, such as tropical forests,” Liu says. “When these areas are converted into farmland, both values are lost at the same time.”
Beef and Milk Cause the Largest Losses
The researchers also examined which agricultural products contribute most heavily to biodiversity decline and the loss of natural carbon storage.
Cattle products emerged as the largest contributors. Beef and milk together account for 41% of the biodiversity loss and 29% of the carbon-storage loss attributed to global food production.
“Animal-based products, and especially products from cattle, have a disproportionately large impact,” Liu says. “Cattle require large amounts of agricultural land, both for grazing and for growing feed crops.”
The findings highlight the land demands of livestock production as an important factor in agriculture’s overall environmental footprint.
Detailed Maps Connect Crops and Livestock to Local Impacts
Earlier studies have often examined biodiversity or carbon storage separately and at relatively coarse geographical scales.
The new research maps both forms of environmental loss simultaneously, using detailed global data and connecting the results to specific food products.
This makes it possible to identify not only the regions under the greatest pressure but also the agricultural activities responsible for that pressure.
The resulting maps could help governments, food companies and agricultural organisations direct interventions towards the locations and products where they are likely to have the greatest effect.
Targeted Changes Could Deliver Major Gains
Because much of agriculture’s environmental impact is concentrated within a relatively limited area, improvements do not necessarily need to cover all farmland equally.
“If we target a relatively small share of agricultural land, this can already deliver major benefits for climate and nature,” Liu says.
Possible measures include improving farming practices, protecting vulnerable ecosystems and shifting consumption towards foods that require less land to produce. Where appropriate, land no longer needed for food production could be restored to natural habitat.
The analysis also suggests that areas with the greatest recorded losses may offer the strongest opportunities for recovery.
“The losses we see also represent potential gains,” Liu says. “Agriculture can therefore not only be part of the problem but also offer major opportunities to address both crises.”
