Limits to Growth in Global Crop Yields: Insights from Data Mining of the FAOSTAT Database from 1961 to 2023
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a comprehensive data mining analysis of the FAOSTAT database to assess historical trends and current limits in global crop yield development. The study included 157 major crops across 202 countries from 1961 to 2023, focusing on time series of yield (t/ha) and area harvested (ha). Weighted global average yields and annual maximum yields were calculated for each crop and classified into four categories of temporal evolution: never improved, still increasing, stagnating, and decreasing. Over the study period, total crop production rose by a factor of 3.9, primarily driven by a 2.54-fold increase in average yield, with harvested area contributing a smaller share. Analysis revealed that approximately 77% of global production volume remains in the "still increasing" category for average yield, although this share has declined from previous decades. In contrast, only about a quarter of production volume continues to experience increases in maximum yield, suggesting a growing number of crops nearing biophysical yield limits. Yield-area diagrams, categorized by a semi-quantitative "L-chart" approach, indicate that high yields are predominantly restricted to relatively small harvested areas, with over 90% of crops showing strong spatial limitations to yield scalability. These findings imply that opportunities for further global crop production expansion via yield improvement are increasingly constrained, and that recent output gains have largely depended on continued expansion of harvested area.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it