Heterogeneous pressure on croplands from land-based strategies to meet the 1.5 °C target | Nature Climate Change

Nature Climate Change (2025)Cite this article

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

Achieving the 1.5 °C target outlined in the Paris Agreement necessitates coordinated global efforts, particularly in the form of ambitious climate pledges. While current discussions primarily focus on energy and emissions pathways, the fine-scale, location-specific consequences for agriculture, land systems and sustainability remain uncertain. Here we evaluate global land-system responses at 5-km2 resolution in pursuit of the 1.5 °C target through recent country-specific climate pledges. Contrary to previous studies predicting cropland expansion under a 1.5 °C scenario, we reveal a 12.8% reduction in cropland area when accounting for cross-sectoral impacts of climate pledges and land-use intensity. The reduction is most pronounced in South America (23.7%), with the global south comprising 81% of the countries worldwide expected to experience cropland loss. Food security in the Global South faces additional pressure due to a projected 12.6% reduction in export potential from the global north.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

The detailed trade matrix of the FAO is available at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM. The agricultural inventory data are available at http://www.earthstat.org/harvested-area-yield-175-crops/. The FAO corporate statistical database can be accessed at https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#definitions. The location characteristics are archived at https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106364/attachment/d3fdb890-f27c-423d-9e44-ed4a90c6b22c/mmc2.xlsx. The administrative boundaries data come from https://data.humdata.org/dataset/global-edge-matched-subnational-boundaries-humanitarian and https://cloudcenter.tianditu.gov.cn/administrativeDivision. The boundary data for the 235 basins in the GCAM can be downloaded at https://github.com/JGCRI/moirai/blob/master/indata/Global235_CLM_5arcmin.bil.

The GCAM is an open-source model available at https://github.com/JGCRI/gcam-core/releases. The version of the GCAM and additional input files associated with this study are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7069066 (ref. 50). The land-change model was adopted from Gao et al.51, and its source code is available at https://github.com/gaoyifan2021/Land-N2N-v1.

The Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2015).

Grant, N. The Paris Agreement’s ratcheting mechanism needs strengthening 4-fold to keep 1.5°C alive. Joule 6, 703–708 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Iyer, G. et al. The path to 1.5°C requires ratcheting of climate pledges. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1092–1093 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Pianta, S. & Brutschin, E. Increased ambition is needed after Glasgow. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 505–506 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

van de Ven, D.-J. et al. A multimodel analysis of post-Glasgow climate targets and feasibility challenges. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 570–578 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Aleluia Reis, L. & Tavoni, M. Glasgow to Paris—the impact of the Glasgow commitments for the Paris climate agreement. iScience 26, 105933 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Roelfsema, M. et al. Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Gasser, T., Ciais, P. & Lewis, S. L. How the Glasgow Declaration on Forests can help keep alive the 1.5°C target. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2200519119 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Ou, Y. et al. Can updated climate pledges limit warming well below 2°C? Science 374, 693–695 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Meinshausen, M. et al. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2°C. Nature 604, 304–309 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Iyer, G. et al. Ratcheting of climate pledges needed to limit peak global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1129–1135 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Millar, R. J. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Nat. Geosci. 10, 741–747 (2017).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Luo, M. et al. 1 km land use/land cover change of China under comprehensive socioeconomic and climate scenarios for 2020–2100. Sci. Data 9, 110 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Chevuturi, A., Klingaman, N. P., Turner, A. G. & Hannah, S. Projected changes in the Asian-Australian monsoon region in 1.5°C and 2.0°C global-warming scenarios. Earth’s Future 6, 339–358 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Su, B. D. et al. Drought losses in China might double between the 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 10600–10605 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Warren, R., Price, J., Graham, E., Forstenhaeusler, N. & VanDerWal, J. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates, and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. Science 360, 791–795 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Chen, G. Z. et al. Global projections of future urban land expansion under shared socioeconomic pathways. Nat. Commun. 11, 537 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Colón-González Felipe, J. et al. Limiting global-mean temperature increase to 1.5–2°C could reduce the incidence and spatial spread of dengue fever in Latin America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6243–6248 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Gao, P. C. et al. Fulfilling global climate pledges can lead to major increase in forest land on Tibetan Plateau. iScience 26, 106364 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Chen, G. Z., Li, X. & Liu, X. P. Global land projection based on plant functional types with a 1-km resolution under socio-climatic scenarios. Sci. Data 9, 125 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Cao, M. et al. Spatial sequential modeling and predication of global land use and land cover changes by integrating a global change assessment model and cellular automata. Earth’s Future 7, 1102–1116 (2019).

Article Google Scholar

Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M. & Herold, M. Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nat. Commun. 12, 2501 (2021).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Potapov, P. et al. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food 3, 19–28 (2022).

Article Google Scholar

Gao, P. C., Liu, Z., Liu, G., Zhao, H. R. & Xie, X. X. Unified metrics for characterizing the fractal nature of geographic features. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 1315–1331 (2017).

Google Scholar

Jiang, B. & Yin, J. J. Ht-index for quantifying the fractal or scaling structure of geographic features. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 104, 530–540 (2014).

Article Google Scholar

Janssens, C. et al. Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 829–835 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Liu, H. X. et al. How to balance land demand conflicts to guarantee sustainable land development. iScience 26, 106641 (2023).

Article Google Scholar

Bren d’Amour, C. et al. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8939–8944 (2017).

Article Google Scholar

Yu, Q. Y., Hu, Q., van Vliet, J., Verburg, P. H. & Wu, W. B. GlobeLand30 shows little cropland area loss but greater fragmentation in China. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 66, 37–45 (2018).

Google Scholar

Bousfield, C. G., Morton, O. & Edwards, D. P. Climate change will exacerbate land conflict between agriculture and timber production. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 1071–1077 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Fuhrman, J. et al. Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 920–927 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Self, A., Burdon, R., Lewis, J., Riggs, P. & Dooley, K. Land Gap Report Briefing Note: 2023 Update (The Land Gap Report, 2023).

Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Ito, A., Takahashi, K. & Masui, T. Gridded emissions and land-use data for 2005–2100 under diverse socioeconomic and climate mitigation scenarios. Sci. Data 5, 180210 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Wang, T. et al. Atmospheric dynamic constraints on Tibetan Plateau freshwater under Paris climate targets. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 219–225 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Hu, Q. et al. Global cropland intensification surpassed expansion between 2000 and 2010: a spatio-temporal analysis based on GlobeLand30. Sci. Tot. Environ. 746, 141035 (2020).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Nechifor, V. & Ferrari, E. Trading for climate resilience. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 804–805 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Fujimori, S. et al. Land-based climate change mitigation measures can affect agricultural markets and food security. Nat. Food 3, 110–121 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Kornhuber, K. et al. Amplified Rossby waves enhance risk of concurrent heatwaves in major breadbasket regions. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 48–53 (2020).

Article Google Scholar

Vernon, C. et al. Global235_CLM_5arcmin.bil. GitHub https://github.com/JGCRI/moirai/blob/master/indata/Global235_CLM_5arcmin.bil (2017).

Global Edge-Matched Subnational Boundaries: Humanitarian (Humanitarian Data Exchange, 2024); https://data.humdata.org/dataset/global-edge-matched-subnational-boundaries-humanitarian

Administrative Division Visualization (National Geomatics Center of China, 2024); https://cloudcenter.tianditu.gov.cn/administrativeDivision

Calvin, K. et al. GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 677–698 (2019).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Wang, Y. H., Song, C. Q., Gao, Y. F., Ye, S. J. & Gao, P. C. Integrating national integrated assessment model and land-use intensity for estimating China’s terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage. Appl. Geog. 162, 103173 (2024).

Article Google Scholar

Tsendbazar, N. E. et al. Developing and applying a multi-purpose land cover validation dataset for Africa. Remote Sens. Environ. 219, 298–309 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

IPCC. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

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. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).

Article Google Scholar

Ou, Y. Model and input files for Iyer & Ou, et al. 2022 (Ratcheting of climate pledges needed to limit peak global warming). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7069065 (2022).

Gao, Y., Song, C., Liu, Z., Ye, S. & Gao, P. Land-N2N: an effective and efficient model for simulating the demand-driven changes in multifunctional lands. Environ. Model. Soft. 185, 106318 (2025).

Download references

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 42230106 and 42271418). H.M. was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (grant no. RS-2024-00467678). Y.O. was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 72474002). P.G. thanks L. Chen and J. Lv for their help with the experiments. G.I. is also affiliated with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which did not provide specific support for this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the affiliated organizations or the governments of the United States, Korea and China, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Peichao Gao, Yifan Gao, Sijing Ye, Xiaofan Yang & Changqing Song

College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China

Yang Ou

Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Peking University, Beijing, China

Yang Ou

Graduate School of Green Growth & Sustainability, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

Haewon McJeon

Center for Global Sustainability, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Gokul Iyer

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

P.G., H.M. and C.S. designed the research; P.G. led the experiments and wrote the first draft; Y.G. performed the land-change modelling module; Y.O., H.M. and G.I. performed the GCAM module; S.Y. and X.Y analysed part of the results; P.G., Y.O. and H.M. led the revisions.

Correspondence to Haewon McJeon or Changqing Song.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Nature Climate Change thanks Gerd Angelkorte, Yujun Yi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

a, Global land system map for 2100. It retains the same spatial and thematic resolutions as the base maps. b, A comparison of the global land system map between 2015 and 2100. The blank areas represent regions that have not changed from 2015 to 2100. The colorful areas represent land system types in 2100 that have changed from 2015 to 2100. c, Summary of pixel-by-pixel transformations from 2015 to 2100. Water basin boundaries data from ref. 42.

a, Relative cropland loss by 2100. The blank areas represent the countries or regions where no cropland loss, while the colorful areas represent the countries or regions with cropland loss. b-c, Category of land systems in 2100 at hotpots. The colorful areas represent the regions that were cropland in 2015 but are no longer retained in 2100. The blank areas represent the regions that were cropland in 2015 and retain so in 2100, or that were not cropland in 2015. Administrative boundaries data from refs. 43,44.

These sources are USA, Brazil, Chinese mainland, Ukraine, Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Russia, Malaysia and Romania.

These sources are Brazil, Argentina, USA, Australia, Chinese mainland, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates.

These sources are USA, Brazil, Ukraine, Chinese mainland, Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Russia, India and Malaysia.

These sources are Argentina, Brazil, USA, Australia, Chinese mainland, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, India and the United Arab Emirates.

a, Process of generating land system maps. b, Mechanism of downscale. c, Five modules of GCAM.

Supporting text, Supplementary Tables 1–35, Figs. 1–5 and References

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

Gao, P., Gao, Y., Ou, Y. et al. Heterogeneous pressure on croplands from land-based strategies to meet the 1.5 °C target. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02294-1

Download citation

Received: 10 November 2023

Accepted: 20 February 2025

Published: 24 March 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02294-1

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative