4.8 Article

Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself?

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1610359113

关键词

yield gaps; food self-sufficiency; food security; food availability; cereals

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  3. Wageningen University & Research (The Netherlands)
  4. CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM)
  5. ESRC [ES/L012294/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although global food demand is expected to increase 60% by 2050 compared with 2005/2007, the rise will be much greater in subSaharan Africa (SSA). Indeed, SSA is the region at greatest food security risk because by 2050 its population will increase 2.5-fold and demand for cereals approximately triple, whereas current levels of cereal consumption already depend on substantial imports. At issue is whether SSA can meet this vast increase in cereal demand without greater reliance on cereal imports or major expansion of agricultural area and associated biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies indicate that the global increase in food demand by 2050 can be met through closing the gap between current farm yield and yield potential on existing cropland. Here, however, we estimate it will not be feasible to meet future SSA cereal demand on existing production area by yield gap closure alone. Our agronomically robust yield gap analysis for 10 countries in SSA using location-specific data and a spatial upscaling approach reveals that, in addition to yield gap closure, other more complex and uncertain components of intensification are also needed, i. e., increasing cropping intensity (the number of crops grown per 12mo on the same field) and sustainable expansion of irrigated production area. If intensification is not successful and massive cropland land expansion is to be avoided, SSA will depend much more on imports of cereals than it does today.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据