More farms, less specialized landscapes, and higher crop diversity stabilize food supplies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Theoretical and empirical studies show increased diversity in crops, supply chains, and markets helps stabilize food systems. At the same time global commodity markets and industrial agriculture have driven homogenization of local and regional production systems, and consolidated power in fewer larger specialized farms and distributers. This is a global challenge, with no obvious global solutions. An important question therefore, is how individual countries can build their own resilience through maintaining or increasing diversity within their borders. Here we show, using farm level data from Germany, that spreading production risk by growing the same crops across different farms carries stabilizing benefits by allowing for increased spatiotemporal asynchrony within crops. We also find that increasing asynchrony between the year-to-year production of different crops has stabilizing effects on food supply. Importantly, the benefits of increasing crop diversity are lower in specialized landscapes growing the same crop on large patches. Our results illustrate clear benefits of diversified crops, producers, and agricultural landscapes to buffer supply side shocks, and for incorporation in subsidies and other regulatory measures aimed at stabilizing food systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".