Nature study warns climate change will threaten global crop yields with substantial losses projected for staple foods by 2100

climate change, crops, Nature, 18 June 25/ in Featured Articles, Sustainability

Important new research published in Nature analyses six major staple crops across 54 countries and reveals that climate change will significantly reduce global food production despite adaptation efforts, with implications for food security and agricultural supply chains worldwide.

A comprehensive global study examining climate change impacts on staple crop production has revealed substantial projected losses across major food crops by the end of this century, even when accounting for producer adaptations and mitigation strategies. The research, published in Nature 18 June 2025, represents the first global analysis to quantify real-world producer adaptations whilst projecting climate impacts on yields over the 21st century.

The study, led by Andrew Hultgren from the University of Illinois and Solomon Hsiang from Stanford University, analysed longitudinal data from 12,658 regions across 54 countries, covering six staple crops that represent two-thirds of global calorie production: maize, soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava, and sorghum.

Projected yield losses across major crops

The findings indicate that “global production declines 5.5 × 10¹⁴ kcal annually per 1°C global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise (120 kcal per person per day or 4.4% of recommended consumption per 1°C; P < 0.001),” according to the authors. Under high-emissions scenarios, the researchers project significant end-of-century losses: maize (-27.8%), wheat (-28.2%), soybean (-35.6%), cassava (-29.8%), and sorghum (-21.7%), with only rice showing relatively modest losses (-6.0%).

Regional variations show particularly severe impacts in key agricultural areas. “Under a high-emissions scenario, our projected end-of-century maize yield losses are severe (about -40%) in the grain belt of the USA, Eastern China, Central Asia, Southern Africa and the Middle East,” the authors report. Similarly, wheat losses are projected at “-15% to -25% in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Africa and South America and -30% to -40% in China, Russia, the USA and Canada.”

For the food industry, these projections have significant implications for raw material sourcing and supply chain planning. Processing facilities dependent on consistent supply volumes of key commodities may need to reassess procurement strategies and consider geographical diversification of supplier bases.

Adaptation strategies show limited effectiveness

Despite accounting for producer adaptations, the study found that adaptive measures provide only partial mitigation. The research indicates that “adaptation and income growth alleviate 23% of global losses in 2050 and 34% at the end of the century (6% and 12%, respectively; moderate-emissions scenario), but substantial residual losses remain for all staples except rice.”

The authors employed a sophisticated econometric approach that captures real-world adaptation behaviours rather than theoretical optimal responses. “We empirically estimate the impact of global producer adaptations using longitudinal data on six staple crops spanning 12,658 regions, capturing two-thirds of global crop calories,” they explain.

This methodology revealed that producers in hotter climates already demonstrate higher adaptation rates, whilst regions with moderate climates – often the world’s major breadbaskets – show more limited current adaptation. “We find that the middle 50% of regions with moderate average temperatures tend to suffer the largest yield losses,” the researchers note, emphasising the vulnerability of major production areas that supply global food markets.

Temperature effects dominate production impacts

The analysis identified temperature changes as the primary driver of yield impacts across all crops examined. “For all crops, temperature changes (through degree days and minimum temperature for rice and wheat) generally dominate the sign of local projected impacts,” the authors state.

Degree day analysis revealed that exposure to temperatures above critical thresholds causes sharp yield declines. For example, the research shows maize yields declining by approximately 5% for each day that shifts from 25°C to 40°C temperatures. This finding has particular relevance for food manufacturers operating in temperature-sensitive processing environments or those dependent on consistent quality parameters from agricultural inputs.

The study also found that “adaptive responses to rising average temperature moderate losses to extreme heat,” but noted that “benefits from these protective measures are partially offset by decreased yield gains during moderate temperatures.”

Economic implications and supply chain considerations

Beyond yield impacts, the research calculated economic consequences through what the authors term a “partial social cost of carbon” for agricultural damages. Their estimates range from $0.99 to $49.48 per ton of CO₂, depending on various economic assumptions and discount rates applied.

The authors note that “aggregate yield losses under climate change harm consumers as caloric consumption is lower and prices are higher; producers are also harmed by production losses, but these may be offset by gains from higher prices.”

For food manufacturers, these economic dynamics suggest potential increases in raw material costs, particularly for temperature-sensitive crops. Companies may need to factor climate-related price volatility into long-term procurement contracts and consider alternative ingredient sourcing strategies.

Regional disparities in impact severity

The research revealed that climate impacts will not be evenly distributed globally. “We estimate that total calorie production is generally affected more heavily by climate change in regions that are richer today,” the authors report, “along with the lowest-income decile owing to its reliance on cassava.”

This finding contrasts with other climate impact studies that typically project greatest damages to low-income populations. The authors explain: “In contrast to analyses of other outcomes that project the greatest damages to the global poor, we find that global impacts are dominated by losses to modern-day breadbaskets with favourable climates and limited present adaptation.”

Implications for food processing and manufacturing

The projected yield reductions have several implications for food processing industries. Manufacturers relying heavily on maize-based ingredients – including starch processors, sweetener producers, and feed manufacturers – may face particular supply pressures given the substantial projected losses in major maize-producing regions.

Similarly, the projected 35.6% decline in soybean yields under high-emissions scenarios could significantly impact protein processing industries, vegetable oil manufacturers, and animal feed producers that depend on consistent soybean supplies.

The research suggests that food companies may need to invest in supplier diversification strategies, develop alternative ingredient formulations, or consider vertical integration approaches to secure supply continuity.

CO2 fertilisation provides limited offset

The study also examined CO₂ fertilisation effects, which have been suggested as a potential mitigating factor for crop production under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. However, the authors found that “adjusting for CO₂ fertilisation does not qualitatively alter the structure of our findings but it does reduce the central estimate for end-of-century yield losses by 5.0–9.5 percentage points.”

This limited offsetting effect suggests that CO₂ fertilisation cannot compensate for the substantial temperature-driven yield losses projected across major crops.

Methodological significance and industry applications

The study’s empirical approach, which captures actual producer adaptation behaviours rather than theoretical optimal responses, provides food industry stakeholders with more realistic projections for supply planning. The authors explain: “Our approach empirically recovers the effect of actual adaptations undertaken in response to diverse climatic and economic conditions faced by producers.”

This methodology offers greater confidence in projections compared to process-based models that assume optimal management practices, providing food companies with more reliable data for strategic planning.

The research indicates that “further adaptation and the potential expansion of cropland may be needed to ensure food security and mitigate climate impacts,” suggesting opportunities for agricultural technology companies and suppliers of climate-resilient farming solutions.

These findings underscore the need for food industry stakeholders to incorporate climate risk assessment into long-term strategic planning, particularly for procurement, supply chain management, and product development strategies.

Reference

Hultgren, A., Carleton, T., Delgado, M., et. al. (2025). Impacts of climate change on global agriculture accounting for adaptation. Nature, 630, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09085-w