foods

Article
The Effect of Climate Change on Food Crop Production in
Lagos State
Tawakalitu Titilayo Tajudeen 1,2, * , Ayo Omotayo 2 , Fatai Olakunle Ogundele 2 and Leah C. Rathbun 1

1 Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
2 Department of Geography and Planning, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos PMB 0001, Nigeria
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Climate change is set to be particularly disruptive in poor agricultural communities. This
study examines the effects of, and farmer’s perceptions of, climate change on farming practices for
cassava and maize in Lagos, Nigeria. Analysis of weather data from 1998 to 2018 (the most recent
available) reveals little impact on cassava yield but a significant impact on maize yield. Furthermore,
survey results indicate that farmers in this area are currently implementing techniques to adapt
to changes in climate based on the type of crop grown. Agriculture in Lagos, Nigeria, is largely
rain-fed and climate change negatively impacts crop productivity by decreasing crop yield and
soil fertility, limiting the availability of soil water, increasing soil erosion, and contributing to the
spread of pests. A decline in crop production due to climate change may be further exasperated
by a lack of access to farming technology that reduces over-reliance on the rain-fed farming system
and subsistence agriculture. This study indicates that there is a need for initiatives to motivate
young and older farmers through access to credits, irrigation facilities, and innovative climate change
adaptive strategies.

Keywords: climate change; food crops; agriculture; maize; rainfall

Citation: Tajudeen, T.T.; Omotayo, A.;
Ogundele, F.O.; Rathbun, L.C. The
Effect of Climate Change on Food
Crop Production in Lagos State. Foods
2022, 11, 3987. https://doi.org/
1. Introduction
10.3390/foods11243987 Climate change is a major global concern that is greatly reshaping the environment
and continuously altering Earth’s ecosystems [1]. The pace of climate change has increased
Academic Editors: Ines Sviličić Petrić,
in recent years when compared to the last century [2–5]. Since the nineteenth century,
Dunja Šamec and Bojan Šarkanj
there has been a global increase in average temperature by 0.9 ◦ C [1]. Projections indicate
Received: 1 November 2022 warming will continue with an average increase of 3–4 ◦ C possible over the next century [6].
Accepted: 6 December 2022 As the Earth warms generally, average temperatures rise throughout the year, but the
Published: 9 December 2022 increases may be more significant in certain seasons than in others [7]. Climate change
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
leads to a distortion of seasonal patterns and consequently, changes in the pattern of rainfall
with regard to jurisdictional claims in and temperature [8].
published maps and institutional affil- Climate change contributes to decreased food production, which has become more
iations. pronounced over the last two to three decades [6]. Though this is a global problem, it is
more prevalent in developing countries, especially sub-Saharan Africa which is among
the most affected in the tropical world [6,9]. The varieties of food crops cultivated in these
regions are heavily impacted by changes in climate. Gray [10] reported that increases in
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. regional temperatures as a result of climate change, particularly in the tropics, can lead
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. to heat stress for all types of crops. The majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are
This article is an open access article agrarian, with much of their populations residing in rural areas. These rural communities
distributed under the terms and depend heavily on agriculture as their means of livelihood [9], and farming practices largely
conditions of the Creative Commons
rely on direct rainfall rather than irrigation [11].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
It is predicted that climate change is having and will continue to have significant
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
negative impacts on crop production in Nigeria, contributing to food security challenges
4.0/).

Foods 2022, 11, 3987. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11243987 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods

Foods 2022, 11, 3987 2 of 15

that lead to adverse socio-economic impacts and changes in ecological conditions [6,12].
Generally, rainfall variation is projected to continue to increase in Nigeria [13]. Precipitation
in southern Nigeria is expected to rise, exacerbating the risk of flooding and possible
submersion of coastal cities [14,15]. Droughts have also become constant in Nigeria and
are expected to continue in Northern areas [16], arising from a decline in precipitation and
a rise in temperature [17,18]. Hence, the change in climate has already begun to trigger
drought and flooding events that adversely affect crop production throughout Nigeria [13].
This onset of seasonal rains and drought has led farmers to adapt planting dates to later
in the season in certain ecosystems (e.g., mangrove swamps, rain forests, and parts of the
Sahel and Guinea Savanna) [19].
Over 80% of crop production in Nigeria is dependent on rainfall [19]. Water availability
has been shown to be influenced by rising temperatures and longer growing seasons.
Increasing evaporative demand is predicted to increase crop irrigation by up to twenty
percent globally by 2080 and up to fifteen percent in Nigeria [20,21]. Further, the frequency
of storms and intense bursts of rainfall may reduce crop yield, or destroy it completely, and
contribute to significant soil erosion and excessive flooding, especially in the tropics [18,22].
Uncertainty around anticipated weather can impact decisions around crop production
(e.g., date of planting, seed purchasing, date of harvest), leading to food shortages [12].
Farmers in Nigeria have reported that climate change is causing uncertainty in the length
and onset of the farming season, longer and shorter periods of rainfall, and reduced
harmattan (a dust-laden wind with very little humidity on the Atlantic coast of Africa) [18].
In addition, rainfall and temperature fluctuations are also associated with increases in the
severity and occurrence of plant diseases and insect outbreaks, both which can further
suppress crop production and make farming more challenging [23].
A large quantity of food consumed in Nigeria is produced through small-scale agricul-
ture (i.e. rural farming). These farmers constitute approximately 80 percent of the country’s
farming population [9,24] and have low agricultural productivity [25]. Currently, a wide
gap exists between overall food crop production and Nigeria‘s growing population, with
food production increasing arithmetically and the population increasing geometrically [6,9].
All of this indicates that climate change may undermine efforts to address existing and
future food security in this area [6,12]. There is a need to understand the impacts of climate
change on food security in Nigeria through a robust academic framework [26]. Estimating
the impacts of climate change on food security is important for the development of policy
that can support interventions and allocate resources focused on adaptive farming practices
to ensure secure food production [27,28].
FAS Lagos estimated cassava and maize to be the highest farming crops within Nigeria
in 2020 [29]. This study examines the impact of temperature and precipitation on cassava
and maize production within Lagos, Nigeria. The study analyzes these trends through
the context of cassava and maize production over a period of 30 years to determine which
climate variables are impacting crop production in order to assess what future production
might look like. In addition, this study assesses the perception of farmers in Lagos of
the effects of climate change on food crop production and their coping strategies to date.
Farmers in this area are cursorily aware of the term climate change and are currently
implementing mitigation practices. This study builds on the body of existing research in
Nigeria and contributes additional information for Lagos (an area not previously studied)
that can be used to inform policy- and decision-makers about climate change-induced
agricultural productivity loss.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The state of Lagos, Nigeria, lies between latitude 6◦ and 7◦ N and longitude 2◦ and
5◦E [30] and is bounded on the north and east by Ogun State; in the west, it shares borders
with the Benin Republic, and its south opens into the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). Lagos is
356,861 hectares in size. Just under half of the hectares in Lagos (47% or 169,613 hectares)
 2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The state of Lagos, Nigeria, lies between latitude 6° and 7° N and longitude 2° and 5°
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 E [30] and is bounded on the north and east by Ogun State; in the west, it shares borders 3 of 15
with the Benin Republic, and its south opens into the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). Lagos is
356,861 hectares in size. Just under half of the hectares in Lagos (47% or 169,613 hectares)
are designated
are designated as as agricultural;
agricultural; of of which
which only
only 30%30% is
is currently
currently being
being utilized
utilized as
as such
such [31].
[31].
Lagos State contains very little arable land [32], and the city of Lagos has a tropicalclimate.
Lagos State contains very little arable land [32], and the city of Lagos has a tropical climate.
The average
The average annual
annual temperature
temperature in Lagos is
in Lagos is 27.0
27.0 ◦°C, and the
C, and the average
average annual
annual rainfall
rainfall isis
1693 mm [33]. Eze et al. [34] proposed that the low-lying nature of Nigeria‘s
1693 mm [33]. Eze et al. [34] proposed that the low-lying nature of Nigeria’s 800 km coast- 800 km coast-
line, from
line, from Lagos
Lagos to
toCalabar,
Calabar,makes
makesthe thefood
foodsystems
systemsofofthis
thisregion
region even
even more
more vulnerable
vulnerable to
to climate
climate change
change duedue to seawater
to seawater flooding
flooding within
within the coastal
the coastal freshwater
freshwater resources
resources nega-
negatively
tively impacting
impacting the inland
the inland fisheries
fisheries and aquaculture.
and aquaculture.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The
The map
map of
of the
the study
study area.
area. Source:
Source: Author’s
Author’s Fieldwork
Fieldwork (2019).
(2019).

The study
studyareaareafor
forthis
this research
research includes
includes three
three farmfarm settlements
settlements selected
selected from from the
the Bada-
Badagry,
gry, Ikorodu,
Ikorodu, and Epe andlocal
Epegovernment
local government
areas ofareas
Lagos,of Nigeria.
Lagos, Nigeria. These
These sites weresites were
selected
selected
based onbased on their
their status as status as rural
rural and and agricultural
agricultural production production
settlements settlements within
within Lagos. La-
Lagos
state has a landmass
gos. Lagos state has of 356,861 hectares,
a landmass of which
of 356,861 47%of
hectares, (169,613
which hectares) are designated
47% (169,613 hectares) arefor
agriculture,
designated for with just 30% of
agriculture, the just
with land30%
currently beingcurrently
of the land utilized as such
being [31]. The
utilized five farm
as such [31].
settlements
The five farm located within the
settlements study
located area are
within thecomprised
study areaofareover 140 registered
comprised crop
of over farmers
140 regis-
and
tered5000
cropfarmers
farmersengaging
and 5000infarmers
mixed engaging
agricultural and food
in mixed production
agricultural andactivities [35]. The
food production
indigenes of the
activities [35]. TheIkorodu division
indigenes of theare mostlydivision
Ikorodu traders,arefarmers,
mostlyand anglers
traders, located
farmers, andalong
an-
the Lagos
glers locatedLagoon
alongforeshore.
the LagosThe mainforeshore.
Lagoon occupations Theofmain
the Epe inhabitants
occupations of include
the Epe fishing
inhab-
and farming.
itants include fishing and farming.

2.2. Sampling Procedures,

2.2. Sampling Procedures, Data
Data Collection
Collection and
and Analysis
Analysis
2.2.1. Climate Analysis
2.2.1. Climate Analysis
Climate data were obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics DataMart (https://
Climate data were obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics DataMart
nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary (accessed on 23 November 2022)) and Central Bank of Nigerian
(https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary (accessed on 23 November 2022)) and Central Bank
bulletin (http://statistics.cbn.gov.ng/cbn-onlinestats/DataBrowser.aspx (accessed on 23
of Nigerian bulletin (http://statistics.cbn.gov.ng/cbn-onlinestats/DataBrowser.aspx (ac-
November 2022)) and collected by the Nigeria Metrological Agency (NIMET). Temperature
cessed
and on 23
rainfall dataNovember
came from 2022)) and collected by
the Lagos-Ikeja-Marina the Nigeria
weather Metrological
station and Agency
was available from
1995 to 2018. Monthly minimum and maximum temperatures were publically availablesta-
(NIMET). Temperature and rainfall data came from the Lagos-Ikeja-Marina weather for
tion
a and was
subset available
of the from
years, and 1995 tominimum
annual 2018. Monthly minimumtemperatures
and maximum and maximumwere temperatures
available
were
for thepublically
remaining. available
All datafor a subset
were of the years,
congregated and annual
into annual valuesminimum and maximum
for the years of interest.
temperatures were available for the remaining. All data were congregated
Monthly rainfall measurements were available for all years, from which total annual into rainfall
annual
values for the years of interest. Monthly rainfall measurements were
was calculated. The World Meteorological Organization [36] defines the classical periodavailable for for
all
years, from which total annual rainfall was calculated. The World Meteorological
averaging climate variables as 30 years. As such, the existing time-series data on rainfall Organ-
ization
(total [36] defines
annual) the classical
and temperature periodminimum
(annual for averaging climate variables
and maximum) as 30
across the 30 years
years.was
As
used in the analysis. Time series graphs were developed for the climate variables to assess
trends and variability.
Food crop production data was collected by the Lagos Ministry of Agriculture and
Co-operative and obtained through the National Bureau of Statistics (https://nigerianstat.
gov.ng/elibrary (accessed on 23 November 2022)). The statistical report provides crop
yield (tonnes per thousand) as well as hectares of production for cassava and maize within
Lagos state from 1995 to 2018. Only the years where crop production data were available
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 4 of 15

in correspondence to climate data were used to develop the linear regression. Time series
graphs for cassava and maize production and hectares of production were developed to
assess trends and variability.
To assess the relationship between crop production and climate variables, a multiple
linear regression model was fit using least squares regression. All possible models were
fit using the R software package (version 4.1.2) [37]. The final models were selected using
adjusted R square values defined as:
 
1 − R2 (N − 1)
adjusted R2 = (1)
N−p−1

where:
R2 = the coefficient of determination;
N = the sample size;
p = the number of parameters in the model.

2.2.2. Farmer’s Perceptions

A survey questionnaire was used to gather information on farmers’ perception of
climate change, its effects on farming, and recently implemented mitigation practices. The
survey included Likert scale, open-ended, and multiple-choice questions. The link to a
copy of the survey has been attached as Supplementary Material. Demographic questions
included those regarding age, gender, marital status, tribe, income, and education level.
Additional questions were included to assess a farmer’s level of awareness of climate
change, including patterns of change, perceptions of effects on food production due to
changes in climatic, and mitigation strategies implemented throughout recent years.
The Farm Settlement Scheme in Nigeria can be described as a government intervention
designed to advance rural development and promote efficient utilization of land resources
for farming [38]. This scheme was used to define the sampling area for the study. The farm
settlement areas of Epe, Ikorodu, and Badagry within Lagos were selected, as agricultural
activities within these settlement areas are the primary source of income for the local
residents. A list of farmers was provided by the Farm Settlement Association for each of
the following farm settlements:
(a) Ajara farm settlements in Badagry;
(b) Odongunyon and Imota farm settlements in Ikorodu; and
(c) Agbowa farm settlement in Epe.
Famers from each of the three lists were randomly selected to participate in the survey.
In each of the farm settlements, sixty farmers (twenty of each who farmed cassava, maize,
and leafy vegetables) were randomly selected. Leafy vegetables are those with leaves and
succulent young shoots picked for consumption. The leafy vegetable farmers were selected
to understand if climate change affects them differently from Cassava and Maize farmers.
This resulted in 180 questionnaires in total.
After seeking permission from each of the Farm Settlement Association’s Heads,
survey questionnaires were distributed at a monthly association meeting during the months
of January and February 2019. Not all surveys were filled out and submitted directly during
the same monthly association meeting. For any non-responsive participants, follow-up was
done at the next monthly association meeting. In some areas where meetings were not held,
the surveys were distributed door-to-door. All participants were notified of the survey
questionnaire at least one week prior to receiving it and participation was voluntary.
To assess the comprehensibility of the term climate change, open-ended questions
were asked to a subset of respondents. These questions were designed to investigate the
linkages between a farmer’s education level and their understanding of scientific terms
regarding climate change. In addition, this provided an opportunity for farmers who were
interested in the subject of this study to ask their own questions.
 survey questionnaire at least one week prior to receiving it and participation was volun-
tary.
To assess the comprehensibility of the term climate change, open-ended questions
were asked to a subset of respondents. These questions were designed to investigate the
linkages between a farmer’s education level and their understanding of scientific terms
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 regarding climate change. In addition, this provided an opportunity for farmers who 5were of 15
interested in the subject of this study to ask their own questions.
Descriptive (frequency, percentage, and trend charts) statistics were used to under-
standDescriptive
the socio-demographic informationand
(frequency, percentage, of the respondents.
trend Inferential
charts) statistics statistics
were used were
to under-
used
standtotheexamine the variation in
socio-demographic adaptive strategies
information based on theInferential
of the respondents. type of crop grown. were
statistics One-
way
used ANOVAs
to examine were
the used to assess
variation the variation
in adaptive in adaptive
strategies based onstrategies
the type adopted by the
of crop grown.
farmers
One-wayand their perception
ANOVAs were usedoftothe pattern
assess the of climatein
variation change phenomenon
adaptive based onby
strategies adopted years
the
of farming
farmers andexperience.
their perception of the pattern of climate change phenomenon based on years
of farming experience.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Climate Analysis
3.1. Climate Analysis
3.1.1. Time Series
3.1.1. Time Series
The first two ten-year periods (1989 to 1998 and 1999 to 2008) for annual maximum
The first two ten-year periods (1989 to 1998 and 1999 to 2008) for annual maximum
temperature show similar trends, with the most recent ten-year period (2009 to 2018)
temperature show similar trends, with the most recent ten-year period (2009 to 2018)
showing
showing differences
differences in the average
in the average values
values as well as
as well as increased
increased variability
variability through
through time
time
(Figure 2). The average annual temperature throughout all years was
(Figure 2). The average annual temperature throughout all years was 27.4 C, with a 27.4 °C, with
◦ a stand-
ard deviation
standard of 0.73
deviation °C. ◦The
of 0.73 most
C. The obvious
most obviousfluctuations
fluctuationsinintemperature
temperaturehavehave occurred
occurred
within the last ten years (2009–2018), which recorded the lowest (21.1 C) highest
within the last ten years (2009–2018), which recorded the lowest (21.1 °C) and
◦ (34.7
and highest
°C) values.
(34.7 ◦ C) values.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Average
Average annual
annual and
and corresponding
corresponding minimum
minimum and
and maximum
maximum temperature for Lagos
temperature for Lagos (1989
(1989
to 2018).
to 2018).

Total annual rainfall in this area shows an oscillating

oscillating trend
trend through
through time
time (Figure
(Figure 3).
3).
The average total rainfall across the thirty-year period was 1542 mm with
average total rainfall across the thirty-year period was 1542 mm with a standard a standard de-
viation
deviationof 257.64 mm.mm.
of 257.64 The two
The most recentrecent
two most ten-year periods
ten-year (2009 to(2009
periods 2019 to
and 1999and
2019 to 2008)
1999
show similar
to 2008) showtrends.
similarHowever, there is considerable
trends. However, fluctuationfluctuation
there is considerable for the years for1989–1998,
the years
which includes
1989–1998, which both the lowest
includes both annual totalannual
the lowest rainfalltotal
(1040 mm in(1040
rainfall 1998)mmandinthe highest
1998) and
the highest
total annualtotal annual
rainfall (2020 mm in(2020
rainfall mm
1997). A in 1997).
small A small
decrease in decrease in rainfall
rainfall occurred occurred
during the
during the last ten years (2009–2018), with the highest and lowest total rainfall
last ten years (2009–2018), with the highest and lowest total rainfall for this period being for this
period being 1761 mm and 1319 mm, respectively. The average annual rainfall across all
years was 1517 mm, with a standard deviation of 221 mm.
The trend of cassava yield in Lagos shows a steady rise in output from 72.66 thousand
tonnes in 1995 to a high peak of 970 thousand tonnes in 2010 (Figure 4). After this time, a
sharp decline occurred during the years 2011 through 2013, after which another sharp rise
is seen in 2014 and 2015. The most recent four years indicate a steady yield. This same trend
applies to maize, with a more consistent and gradual rise in yield, from 47 thousand tonnes
in 1995 to its highest peak in 2010 of 223.06 thousand tonnes. There was also an increased
yield of maize in 2014 and a moderate decline through 2018. The average crop yield for
cassava was 590 tonnes, with a standard deviation of 293, and for maize was 110 tonnes
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 6 of 15

Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

with a standard deviation of 62. For cassava and maize, only the wet seasonal yield data
were available for the years 2011 through 2013, which is the reason that such a sharp drop
1761 mm in
occurred and 1319
the mm,
data, notrespectively.
an indication The average
that yieldsannual rainfall
decreased across all years
significantly. was 1517
Removing this
mm, did
data withnot
a standard
influencedeviation
the result,ofso221 mm.kept in the analysis.
it was

2150
TOTAL ANNUAL RAINFALL (MM)

2000

1850

1700

1550

1400

1250

1100

950
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
YEARS
1989-1998 1999-2008 2009-2018
Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
Figure 3. Total annual rainfall for Lagos (1989 to 2018).
Figure 3. Total annual rainfall for Lagos (1989 to 2018).

The trend of cassava yield in Lagos shows a steady rise in output from 72.66 thousand
1200 tonnes in 1995 to a high peak of 970 thousand tonnes in 2010 (Figure 4). After this time, a
sharp decline occurred during the years 2011 through 2013, after which another sharp rise
1000 is seen in 2014 and 2015. The most recent four years indicate a steady yield. This same
trend applies to maize, with a more consistent and gradual rise in yield, from 47 thousand
tonnes in 1995 to its highest peak in 2010 of 223.06 thousand tonnes. There was also an
800 increased yield of maize in 2014 and a moderate decline through 2018. The average crop
Tonnes (000)

yield for cassava was 590 tonnes, with a standard deviation of 293, and for maize was 110
600 tonnes with a standard deviation of 62. For cassava and maize, only the wet seasonal yield
data were available for the years 2011 through 2013, which is the reason that such a sharp
drop occurred in the data, not an indication that yields decreased significantly. Removing
400 this data did not influence the result, so it was kept in the analysis.

200

0
1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Year
Cassava Production Maize Production

Figure 4. Lagos Cassava and Maize production through time (1995–2018).

Figure 4. Lagos Cassava and Maize production through time (1995–2018).

There wasaaconsistent
There was consistentrise
rise
in in
thethe cultivated
cultivated areaarea
overover
time time for Cassava
for both both Cassava and
and Maize
Maize from 1995 to 2011 and a decline from 2013. The average land size
from 1995 to 2011 and a decline from 2013. The average land size for cassava productionfor cassava pro-
duction is 42 thousand
is 42 thousand hectareshectares with a standard
with a standard deviationdeviation of 19,
of 19, while while
the the average
average land sizeland
for
size for maize production is 55 thousand hectares with a standard deviation
maize production is 55 thousand hectares with a standard deviation of 30 (Figure of 30 (Figure
5). The
5).
landThe land
area forarea for cassava
cassava wasthousand
was 7.654 7.654 thousand hectares
hectares in and
in 1995, 1995,it and it increased
increased gradu-
gradually to
ally
69.67tothousand
69.67 thousand
hectareshectares
in 2017. in
In 2017. In addition,
addition, the land the
arealand area for
for maize maize production
production increased
increased gradually from 25 thousand hectares in 1995 to 109.62 in 2018. This trend also
corresponds to the production output recorded for both crops.

120
 Figure 4. Lagos Cassava and Maize production through time (1995–2018).

There was a consistent rise in the cultivated area over time for both Cassava and
Maize from 1995 to 2011 and a decline from 2013. The average land size for cassava pro-
duction is 42 thousand hectares with a standard deviation of 19, while the average land
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 size for maize production is 55 thousand hectares with a standard deviation of 30 (Figure 7 of 15
5). The land area for cassava was 7.654 thousand hectares in 1995, and it increased gradu-
ally to 69.67 thousand hectares in 2017. In addition, the land area for maize production
increased from
gradually gradually from 25hectares
25 thousand thousand hectares
in 1995 in 1995
to 109.62 to 109.62
in 2018. Thisintrend
2018.also
This trend also
corresponds
corresponds to the production output recorded
to the production output recorded for both crops. for both crops.

120

100

80
Hectares (000)

60

40

20

0
1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019
Year
Land Size (Cassava) Land Size (Maize)

Figure 5. Lagos Cultivated land area for Cassava and Maize production through time (1995–2018).
Figure 5. Lagos Cultivated land area for Cassava and Maize production through time (1995–2018).

3.1.2. Multiple Linear Regression Models

None of the climate variables showed a strong correlation to cassava yield; the annual
minimum temperature had the strongest correlation at 0.39, while the annual maximum
temperature and annual total rainfall values were 0.20 and −0.09, respectively. As expected,
there was a strong direct correlation between the hectares of production and cassava yield
(0.98). The adjusted R2 values for all possible linear regression models can be found in
Table 1.

Table 1. Adjusted R2 values for all possible linear regression models for cassava production.

Model Adjusted R2 p-Value

C = b0 + b1 Tmin 0.1084 0.0642
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Ac 0.9647 <0.0001
C = b0 + b1 Tmax −0.0355 0.6495
C = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 Ac 0.9525 <0.0001
C = b0 + b1 R −0.0372 0.6802
C = b0 + b1 R + b2 Ac 0.9443 <0.0001
C = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 R −0.0759 0.8295
C = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 R + b3 Ac 0.9535 <0.0001
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 R 0.0886 0.1451
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax 0.0939 0.1366
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 R + b3 Ac 0.9638 <0.0001
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax + b3 R 0.0744 0.2171
C = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax + b3 R + b4 Ac 0.9617 <0.0001

Where:
C = Annual Cassava Yield;
Tmin = Minimum Annual Temperature;
Tmax = Maximum Annual Temperature;
R = Total Annual Rainfall;
Ac = Hectares of Cassava Production.
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 8 of 15

The selected linear regression model for this analysis had an adjusted R2 value of 0.96
and was found to be:
C = 664.67 − 28.1 Tmin + 14.21 Ac . (2)
Maize yield showed strong negative correlations to climate variables. The annual
minimum temperature was more strongly correlated (−0.61) to maize yield than the
annual maximum temperature (−0.21). Total annual rainfall showed a little-no significant
correlation (0.05) with maize yield. As expected, there is a strong correlation between the
hectares of production and maize yield (0.82). The adjusted R2 values for all possible linear
regression models can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Adjusted R2 values for all possible linear regression models for maize production.

Model Adjusted R2 p-Value

M = b0 + b1 Tmin 0.3450 0.0020
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Am 0.7696 <0.0001
M = b0 + b1 Tmax 0.0028 0.3136
M = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 Am 0.7514 0.0000
M = b0 + b1 R −0.0450 0.9254
M = b0 + b1 R + b2 Ac 0.6557 <0.0001
M = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 R −0.0442 0.6056
M = b0 + b1 Tmax + b2 R + b3 Am 0.7506 <0.0001
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 R 0.3186 0.0070
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax 0.3297 0.0058
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 R + b3 Am 0.7581 <0.0001
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax + b3 R 0.3006 0.0170
M = b0 + b1 Tmin + b2 Tmax + b3 R + b4 Am 0.8223 <0.0001

Where:
M = Annual Maize Yield;
Tmin = Minimum Annual Temperature;
Tmax = Maximum Annual Temperature;
R = Total Annual Rainfall;
Am = Hectares of Maize Production.
The selected linear regression model for this analysis had an adjusted R2 value of 0.82
and was found to be:

M = 878.62 − 17.07 Tmin − 0.003 R − 14.35 Tmax + 1.55Am . (3)

3.2. Farmers’ Perception Analysis

The majority of respondents were male (76.1%) and over the age of fifty (44.4%).
Less than seven percent of the respondents were under the age of thirty (6.7%). No
significant differences in gender, or age were seen across the different farm settlement areas.
Demographics for the respondents to the survey questionnaire can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. Demographics for the survey respondents.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Female 43 23.9
Gender
Male 137 76.1
21–30 12 6.7
31–40 38 21.1
Age
41–50 50 27.8
51 and above 80 44.4
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 9 of 15

Significant differences were found for income levels across the different farm settle-
ment areas (Table 4). Badagry had more farmers within the lowest income class, yet the
percentage within the highest income classes was not significantly different from the other
two farm settlement areas. The farmers in this settlement area also had the most farmers
working the smallest areas of land (1 to 5 plots of size 0.165 acres), 70 percent as compared
to 62 percent in Epe and 42 percent in Ikorodu.

Table 4. Income class for the survey respondents.

Location Income (₦) Frequency Percent

<20,000 16 26.7
21,000–500,000 31 51.7
Epe
51,000–80,000 11 18.3
81,000–100,000 2 3.3
<20,000 10 15.0
21,000–500,000 35 23.3
Ikorodu
51,000–80,000 12 21.7
81,000–100,000 3 40.0
<20,000 29 48.3
21,000–500,000 20 33.3
Badagry
51,000–80,000 9 15.0
81,000–100,000 2 3.3

The majority of respondents received more than a primary education (77 percent);
with 31 percent receiving a secondary education and just over 46 percent receiving a tertiary
education (Table 5). The majority have been farming for more than fifteen years (73.9%)
and self-identified as being aware of climate change (79.4%). In addition, the respondents
who were aware of climate change indicated that they were informed through a variety of
sources ranging from television, association meetings, and conferences.

Table 5. Education, experience, and awareness metrics.

Factors Attributes Frequency Percent

No Formal Education 17 9.4
Level of education Primary 24 13.3
Secondary 56 31.1
Tertiary 83 46.1
1–5 20 11.1
Years of farming 6–10 15 8.3
experience 11–15 12 6.7
16 and above 133 73.9
No 35 19.4
Climate awareness Yes 143 79.4
Not sure 2 1.2

Questionnaire responses as well as individual discussions with farmers, indicate

that they understand the impacts of climate change on their crop yield. A large majority
(81%) of respondents indicated that pest and disease outbreaks appear to be increasing
(Figure 6). In addition, this was seen to have a negative impact on crop yield. The majority
of respondents also perceive rainfall (73%) and temperature (53%) to be increasing, although
those respondents from Epe were twenty percent less likely to perceive rising temperatures
compared to the other settlement areas. An ANOVA test (p-value = 0.002) indicates that
the variation in the perception of increasing temperature is based on years of farming
experience and the majority of farmers equate rising temperatures (51.1%) and rainfall
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 10 of 15

Foods 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

(73.9%) with higher crop yield. Harmattan events were also perceived to be decreasing in
this area.

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Perception
Perception of
of farmers
farmers on
on the
the impacts
impacts of
of climate
climate change.
change. Where
Where (*)
(*) represents
represents the
the signifi-
signifi-
cance of the variables at a 95% confidence level, and years of farming experience is used as the
cance of the variables at a 95% confidence level, and years of farming experience is used as the
determining factor for variation in perception/response.
determining factor for variation in perception/response.
Answers
Answers to to the
the open-ended
open-ended questions
questions indicate
indicate thatthat those
those respondents
respondentsthat thatwere
were un-un-
aware of the term climate change were still concerned about the
aware of the term climate change were still concerned about the negative effect that cli-mate negative effect that cli-
mate
change change will on
will have have on crop
their theiryield.
crop yield. They expressed
They expressed concernconcern
aboutabout the asso-ciated
the issue issue asso-
ciated with the late onset of rain and moderate drought, leading
with the late onset of rain and moderate drought, leading to heavy downpours creating to heavy downpours
creating
soil clogssoil
andclogs
loss ofand loss of vegetable
vegetable fields and fields
fertile and
soils.fertile
“I tendsoils.
not “I
to tend
plantnot toafter
until planttwountil
or
after
threetwo or three because
downpours downpours because
in most cases,inthe
mostfirstcases, the first are
few rainfalls fewoften
rainfalls arepulling
heavy, often heavy,
down
pulling
the stems,down and the stems,away
washing and washing
the seeds,away the seeds, expressed
and fertilizer”, and fertilizer”,
one ofexpressed one of
the respondents.
the
Seven out of nine farmers aged sixty or older stated that they believe the environmentthe
respondents. Seven out of nine farmers aged sixty or older stated that they believe is
environment
not as hot as itisisnot as hot as
currently it is currently
compared to whencompared to when
they started they started farming.
farming.
Respondents
Respondents were werealsoalsoasked
askedaboutaboutthe thevarious
various strategies
strategies they useuse
they to cope
to copewithwithcli-
mate change
cli-mate change (Figure 7). The
(Figure 7). ANOVA
The ANOVA highlights that there
highlights is a significant
that there variation
is a significant in the
variation
type
in theoftype
strategies adopted.
of strategies Strategies
adopted. ranged from
Strategies rangedmanurefrom application (88.3%), fertiliza-
manure application (88.3%),
tion (77.2%), (77.2%),
fertiliza-tion chemicalchemical
application (95.6%),(95.6%),
application and multiple cropping
and multiple (77.2%),
cropping with some
(77.2%), with
strategies such as
some strategies fertilization,
such mulching,
as fertilization, irrigation,
mulching, and land
irrigation, andexpansion varying
land expansion based
varying
upon
basedtheupon typetheoftype
cropof farmed. About 25%
crop farmed. About of vegetable farmers farmers
25% of vegetable expressed their concern
expressed their
about
concern complaints from theirfrom
about complaints customers due to thedue
their customers smell of applying
to the smell of chemicals and ferti-
applying chemicals
lizer in their fields.
and ferti-lizer Some
in their vegetable
fields. farmers discussed
Some vegetable using manure
farmers discussed usinginstead
manure ofinstead
fertilizer.
of
Approximately 65 percent65ofpercent
fertilizer. Approximately respondents considered
of respondents vegetables
considered highly sensitive
vegetables to water
highly sensitive
to water availability,
availability, and thereand was there was an indication
an indication that theythat usethey use irrigation
irrigation to cope to cope
with thewith
lacktheof
lack of rainfall.
rainfall. Mulching Mulching
was thewas theused
least leastcoping
used coping
strategy,strategy, and there
and there was anwas an indication
indication that
that mulching
mulching has ahashigh a high
labor labor cost. Lastly,
cost. Lastly, more than more75 than 75 percent
percent of the of the respondents
respondents adopt
adopt multiple
multiple cropping.cropping. Respondents
Respondents indicatedindicated that multiple
that multiple cropping cropping
meets meets
both landbothman-
land
man-agement
agement and economic
and economic objectives.
objectives. One of Onetheof the respondents
respondents indicated,
indicated, “I have“I limited
have limited
land;
land; therefore,
therefore, I plantI both
plantmaize
both andmaize andvegetables
a few a few vegetables on my farmland
on my farmland to maximizeto maximize
my har-
my har-vest”.
vest”.
Foods 2022, 11, x3987
FOR PEER REVIEW 1211ofof 16
15

Figure
Figure 7.
7. The
Thevarious
variousidentified coping
identified strategies
coping adopted
strategies by by
adopted farmers. Where
farmers. (*) represents
Where the sig-
(*) represents the
nificance of the variables at a 95% confidence level, and the type of crop grown is used as the deter-
significance of the variables at a 95% confidence level, and the type of crop grown is used as the
mining factor for variation in adoption/response.
determining factor for variation in adoption/response.

4.
4. Discussion
Discussion
Africa
Africa is is identified
identified as as aa region
region highly
highly vulnerable
vulnerable to to climate
climate change.
change. Floods,
Floods,erosion,
erosion,
and
and droughts
droughts are are becoming
becoming more more prevalent
prevalent and and threaten
threaten the the entire
entire country
country of of Nigeria,
Nigeria,
resulting in
resulting in increasingly
increasingly severe consequences
consequences [8] for agriculture production. Small-scale Small-scale
agriculture is
agriculture is crucial
crucial to to the well-being of the people of Nigeria. In In aa place
place where
where food
food
security has
security has already
already become an an issue,
issue, climate
climate change
change has has the
the potential
potential toto make
make this
this much
much
worse. There
worse. Thereisisaascientific
scientificconsensus
consensusthat thatthethe global
global climate
climate is changing
is changing andand expected
expected to
to have
have substantial
substantial impacts
impacts on food
on food cropcrop production
production significantly
significantly but inbut in uncertain
uncertain ways.ways.
The
The trend
trend analysis
analysis fromfrom this study
this study shows shows that climatic
that climatic variables
variables are fluctuating,
are fluctuating, andfluc-
and this this
fluctuation
tuation is currently
is currently affecting
affecting andandmaymaycontinuecontinue to impact
to impact cropcrop yield.
yield.
The final
The final selected
selected linear
linear regression
regression models
models included
included minimum
minimum temperature
temperature for for both
both
cassava and maize yield. The model for maize additionally included
cassava and maize yield. The model for maize additionally included rainfall as a predictor rainfall as a predictor
variable. One
variable. Onestudystudyindicated
indicated that
that maize
maize yield
yield reduces
reduces underunder
heatheat
stressstress as it impacts
as it impacts both
both pollination and seed germination [39]. Another study showed that a 1 ◦ C increase in
pollination and seed germination [39]. Another study showed that a 1 °C increase in av-
average
erage temperature
temperature resulted
resulted in in a tenpercent
a ten percentloss lossininmaize
maizeyieldyield[40].
[40]. Unlike
Unlike maize,
maize, the
the
model for
model for cassava
cassava did did not
not include
include rainfall
rainfall as as aa predictor
predictor variable.
variable. Cassava
Cassavaisisaadrought-
drought-
tolerant species that thrives favorably in harsh climatic conditions
tolerant species that thrives favorably in harsh climatic conditions [41,42]. This may [41,42]. This may bebe
due to the crop’s ability to develop large underground roots
due to the crop’s ability to develop large underground roots and its ability to delay leaf and its ability to delay leaf
production until
production until the
the next
next rainfall
rainfall [43].
[43]. ItIt be
be noted
noted thatthat while
while cassava
cassava is is drought
drought tolerant,
tolerant,
different phenotypes respond differently to water stress [44]. Chikezie
different phenotypes respond differently to water stress [44]. Chikezie et al. [8] carried out et al. [8] carried out
a similar study to this one but in Calabar, Nigeria and recorded
a similar study to this one but in Calabar, Nigeria and recorded similar results on food similar results on food
crop production.
crop production.
The farmers who took the survey tended to express more concern about irrigation
The farmers who took the survey tended to express more concern about irrigation
for vegetables rather than either cassava or maize. They reported that while cassava and
for vegetables rather than either cassava or maize. They reported that while cassava and
maize require water at the early stages of development to be successful, they do not require
maize require water at the early stages of development to be successful, they do not re-
periodic watering, unlike other leafy vegetables. In addition, they showed concern about
quire periodic watering, unlike other leafy vegetables. In addition, they showed concern
irregularities in the late onset of rainfall in terms of both frequency and intensity, as this
about irregularities in the late onset of rainfall in terms of both frequency and intensity, as
is the factor that defines the planting season. Because of this, the farmers indicated that
this is the factor that defines the planting season. Because of this, the farmers indicated
they often use irrigation at this early stage. Many of the survey respondents expressed
that they often use irrigation at this early stage. Many of the survey respondents expressed
concern regarding the danger posed by the increasing incidence of erosion and flooding
concern regarding the danger posed by the increasing incidence of erosion and flooding
and how these events have washed away their standing vegetable crops and topsoil in the
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 12 of 15

past, resulting in a decrease in soil fertility. To repair soil fertility, the respondents stated
that they have incurred additional costs to apply manure and fertilizer.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and climate change may also affect crops indirectly
through the impact of pests and diseases [21]. Pests attack food crops leading to reduced
yield and a high price of the scarce food crops and consequent malnutrition [34]. Pests
were identified as a major concern by the survey respondents, who indicated that they had
seen a reduction in the quality and quantity of their crops due to pest infestations. Studies
show that there has been an increasing loss in crop yields due to insect pests in a warming
climate [45]. As much as a 20–40 percent annual loss of major grain crops such as maize,
rice as well as vegetables has been observed in Nigeria [46,47].
On a separate note, the demographics of the survey indicate a decline in farming with
younger generations. Less than seven percent of the respondents from this survey were
under the age of thirty, yet Waheed [48] estimates the youth unemployment rate to be
about fifty percent in Nigeria. The survey respondents discussed their concern over fewer
young people entering the profession of farming, yet some discussed situations where
youth took over farming from their aged parents, especially in the Badagry community.
Wole-Ayo et al. [49] found that in Nigeria, one of the barriers to youth entering agriculture
as a profession is the lack of governmental loans. In addition, just under 1 in 4 survey
respondents identified as women. This is in line with the results of a study by Anosike
and Mayowa [50] which found that 72% of farmers in Lagos are men. Future implications
of this aging demographic include a loss of institutional knowledge, but also perhaps an
opportunity for creating future opportunities for women to join the profession.

5. Conclusions
Our results are limited by the lack of accessible and consistent food production and
climate or weather data. Some farmers surveyed were eager to share their almanacs,
indicating that they rely on localized information collected by themselves or those they
know to make farming decisions. Enete et al. [51] reported that most governments in
Nigeria already have agencies charged with environmental issues, including climate change
and they most often deliver information through radio and television programs. While
up to thirty percent of those surveyed indicated that they had heard of climate change
through television or radio, other respondents stated that they pay little attention to these
communication formats due to additional expenses incurred in implementing some of the
solutions from the information. A lack of consistent data and access to timely information
makes it more challenging for farmers to adapt.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, can also be available on: https://github.com/Titilayor547/Survey/.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.T.T. and F.O.O.; methodology, T.T.T., F.O.O. and A.O.;
software, F.O.O.; validation, A.O., L.C.R. and F.O.O.; formal analysis, T.T.T.; investigation, T.T.T.;
resources, T.T.T. and A.O.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, T.T.T.; writing—review
and editing, T.T.T. and L.C.R.; visualization, T.T.T. and L.C.R.; supervision, A.O., L.C.R. and F.O.O.;
project administration, F.O.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Funding for the time to write the paper, and the publication fee was provided by North
Carolina State University.
Data Availability Statement: The supported data for the reported results can be found at (a) National
Bureau of Statistical [52,53], (b) Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Statistical Bulletin (2016) [54], (c) Lagos
Bureau of Statistics [55].
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 13 of 15

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank all the respondents who voluntary take parts in the
survey from all the farm settlements. My sincere gratitude goes to Ayo Omotayo (the current
Director General of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies in Nigeria), Ogundele, F. O.
and my current Advisor (Leah C. Rathbun) for their time, encouragement and dedication towards
this publication.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Arora, N.K. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Production and Its Sustainable Solutions. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 2, 95–96.
[CrossRef]
2. Ugochukwu Onyeneke, R.; Augusta Nwajiuba, C.; Chinonso Emenekwe, C.; Nwajiuba, A.; Judith Onyeneke, C.; Ohalete, P.;
Iyke Uwazie, U. Climate Change Adaptation in Nigerian Agricultural Sector: A Systematic Review and Resilience Check of
Adaptation Measures. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4, 967–1006. [CrossRef]
3. Akpodiogaga-a, P.; Odjugo, O. General Overview of Climate Change Impacts in Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol. 2010, 29, 47–55. [CrossRef]
4. IPCC. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands: Methodological Guidance on
Lands with Wet and Drained Soils, and Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment; Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N.,
Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Troxler, T.g., Eds.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
5. Nwaiwu, I.U.O.; Orebiyi, J.S.; Ohajianya, D.O.; Ibekwe, U.C.; Onyeagocha, S.U.O.; Henri-Ukoha, A.; Osuji, M.N.; Tasie, C.M. The
Effects of Climate Change on AgriculturalSustainability in Southeast Nigeria–Implications for Food Security. AJAEES 2014, 3,
23–36. [CrossRef]
6. FAO. Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses; Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations: Rome,
Italy, 2015.
7. EPA. Climate Change Indicators: Seasonal Temperature; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA,
2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-seasonal-temperature (accessed on
15 August 2022).
8. Chikezie, C.; Ibekwe, U.C.; Ohajianya, D.O.; Orebiyi, J.S.; Ibeagwa, O.B. Vulnerability of Food Crop Farmers to Climate Change in
South Eastern Nigeria. AJAEES 2019, 30, 1–8. [CrossRef]
9. Essien, E.B. Food Insecurity and Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Threats and Opportunities. Int. J. Dev. Stud.
2013, 25, 91–115.
10. Gray, E. NASA at Your Table: Climate Change and Its Environmental Impacts on Crop Growth; NASA’s Earth Science News Team:
Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
11. Molden, D.; Vithanage, M.; de Fraiture, C.; Faures, J.M.; Gordon, L.; Molle, F.; Peden, D. Water Availability and Its Use in
Agriculture. In Treatise on Water Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 707–732. [CrossRef]
12. Osuafor, A.M.; Nnorom, N.R. Impact of Climate Change on Food Security in Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2014, 3, 208–219.
13. Haider, H. Climate Change in Nigeria: Impacts and Responses; K4D Helpdesk Report; Institute of Development Studies: Brighton,
UK, 2019.
14. Akande, A.; Costa, A.C.; Mateu, J.; Henriques, R. Geospatial Analysis of Extreme Weather Events in Nigeria (1985–2015) Using
Self-Organizing Maps. Adv. Meteorol. 2017, 2017, 8576150. [CrossRef]
15. Ebele, N.; Emodi, N. Climate Change and Its Impact in Nigerian Economy. JSRR 2016, 10, 1–13. [CrossRef]
16. Amanchukwu, R.N.; Amadi-Ali, T.G.; Ololube, N.P. Climate Change Education in Nigeria: The Role of Curriculum Review.
Education 2015, 5, 71–79. [CrossRef]
17. Oladipo, E. Towards Enhancing the Adaptive Capacity of Nigeria: A Review of the Country’s State of Preparedness for Climate Change
Adaptation; Heinrich Böll Foundation: Abuja, Nigeria, 2010.
18. Döll, P. Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Irrigation Requirements: A Global Perspective. Clim. Chang. 2002, 54,
269–293. [CrossRef]
19. Agbo, C.U. Climate Change and Crop Production in Nigeria: Effects and Adaptation Options. In Critical issues in agricultural
adaptation to climate change in Nigeria; Enete, A.A., Uguru, M.I., Eds.; Chenglo: Enugu, Nigeria, 2012; pp. 114–143.
20. Fischer, G.; Tubiello, F.N.; van Velthuizen, H.; Wiberg, D.A. Climate Change Impacts on Irrigation Water Requirements: Effects of
Mitigation, 1990–2080. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 1083–1107. [CrossRef]
21. Gornall, J.; Betts, R.; Burke, E.; Clark, R.; Camp, J.; Willett, K.; Wiltshire, A. Implications of Climate Change for Agricultural
Productivity in the Early Twenty-First Century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2973–2989. [CrossRef]
22. Mârza, B.; Angelescu, C.; Tindeche, C. Agricultural Insurances and Food Security. The New Climate Change Challenges. Procedia
Econ. Financ. 2015, 27, 594–599. [CrossRef]
23. Conrow, J. Nigeria Needs Biotechnology to Weather Climate Change Impacts on Farming, Say West African Scientists. Available
online: https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/11/nigeria-needs-biotechnology-to-weather-climate-change-impacts-
on-farming-say-west-african-scientists/ (accessed on 18 June 2022).
24. Mgbenka, R.N.; Mbah, E.N.; Ezeano, C.I. A Review of Small Holder Farming in Nigeria: Need for Transformation. AERJ 2015, 5,
19–26. [CrossRef]
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 14 of 15

25. Okoye, B.C.; Adamade, C. Agriculture in Nigeria: Country Report for FAO-Nigeria; Technical Report Presented during the Technical
Training on Cassava Production and Processing Technologies provided under the Framework of the FAO China South-South
Cooperation (SSC) Programme (2016). 2016, pp. 1–27. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351272788_
Agriculture_in_Nigeria_Country_Report_for_FAO-Nigeria (accessed on 16 August 2022). [CrossRef]
26. World Bank. Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience; The World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013; Volume 2.
27. Burton, I.; Lim, B.; Spanger-Siegfried, E.; Malone, E.L.; Huq, S. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing
Strategies, Policies, and Measures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005.
28. Battisti, D.S.; Naylor, R.L. Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat. Science 2009, 323,
240–244. [CrossRef]
29. Uche, M.N. Nigeria: Grain and Feed Annual 2019. Nigeria’s Imports of Wheat and Rice to Rise; Mariano, J.B., Ed.; GAIN Report; Public
NG-19002; USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: Lagos, Nigeria, 2019. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/
api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Grain%20and%20Feed%20Annual_Lagos_Nigeria_5-6-2019.pdf (accessed on
12 August 2022).
30. Fasunwon, O.O.; Ayeni, A.O.; Lawal, A.O. A Comparative Study of Borehole Water Quality from Sedimentary Terrain and
Basement Complex in South-Western, Nigeria. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 4, 327–335. [CrossRef]
31. Lagos Global. Lagos State Government—Agricultural Sector Deal Book; Office of Overseas Affairs and Investment: Lagos,
Nigeria, 2018. Available online: https://lagossdgandinvestment.com/Agriculture-Deal-Book-Optimized.pdf (accessed on
20 September 2022).
32. Akintola-Arikawe, J.O. Lagos. In Nigeria: A People United, A Future Assured; Mamman, J.O., Oyebanji, J.O., Peters, S.W., Eds.;
Gabumo Publishing Co., Ltd.: Lagos, Nigeria; Abuja, Nigeria, 2000; pp. 355–380.
33. Climate-Data. Climate Lagos (Nigeria); Climate-Data: Lagos, Nigeria, 2019. Available online: https://en.climate-data.org/africa/
nigeria/lagos/lagos-552/ (accessed on 5 December 2022).
34. Eze, U.F.; Ikeogu, C.; Iwuh, C.F.; Nwakama, C.I. Review of Potential Applications of GIS And Welfare Forecasting To Challenge
Climate Hazards In Developing Countries: Nigeria As A Case Study. Int. J. Dev. Dig. 2012, 15, 60–77.
35. Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural Services Department. Available online: https://agriculture.lagosstate.gov.ng/departments/
agricultural-services-department (accessed on 10 October 2022).
36. WMO. Statistical Depictions of Climate. Available online: https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/statistical_depictions_
of_climate.php (accessed on 10 October 2022).
37. R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, 2021, Vienna, Austria. Available online: https://www.R-
project.org/ (accessed on 9 January 2022).
38. Adegeye, A.J. Re–examination of the Issues Involved in the Farm Settlement Scheme of the Western State of Nigeria. Oxf. Agrar.
Stud. 1974, 3, 79–88. [CrossRef]
39. Lizaso, J.I.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Rodríguez, L.; Gabaldon-Leal, C.; Oliveira, J.A.; Lorite, I.J.; Sánchez, D.; García, E.; Rodríguez, A.
Impact of High Temperatures in Maize: Phenology and Yield Components. Field Crops Res. 2018, 216, 129–140. [CrossRef]
40. Shi, W.; Tao, F. Vulnerability of African Maize Yield to Climate Change and Variability during 1961–2010. Food Sec. 2014, 6,
471–481. [CrossRef]
41. Howeler, R.; Lutaladio, N.; Thomas, G. Save and Grow: Cassava—A Guide to Sustainable Production Intensification; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United States of America: Rome, Italy, 2013.
42. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Cassava in Tropical Africa Reference Manual; IITA: Ibadan, Nigeria, 1990.
43. Wilson, M.C.; Mutka, A.M.; Hummel, A.W.; Berry, J.; Chauhan, R.D.; Vijayaraghavan, A.; Taylor, N.J.; Voytas, D.F.; Chitwood,
D.H.; Bart, R.S. Gene Expression Atlas for the Food Security Crop Cassava. New Phytol. 2017, 213, 1632–1641. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
44. Aina, O.O.; Dixon, A.G.O.; Akinrinde, E.A. Effect of Soil Moisture Stress on Growth and Yield of Cassava in Nigera. Pak. J. Biol.
Sci. 2007, 10, 3085–3090. [PubMed]
45. Deutsch, C.A.; Tewksbury, J.J.; Tigchelaar, M.; Battisti, D.S.; Merrill, S.C.; Huey, R.B.; Naylor, R.L. Increase in Crop Losses to Insect
Pests in a Warming Climate. Science 2018, 361, 916–919. [CrossRef]
46. Alabi, O.; Banwo, O.O.; Alabi, S.O. Crop Pest Management and Food Security in Nigerian Agriculture. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant
Prot. 2006, 39, 457–464. [CrossRef]
47. Akinfenwa, G. Nigeria, Other African Countries Lose $200b to Plant Pests, Diseases Yearly; BusinessAgro; The guardian: Lagos,
Nigeria, 2019. Available online: https://guardian.ng/features/agro-care/nigeria-other-african-countries-lose-200b-to-plant-
pests-diseases-yearly/ (accessed on 4 August 2022).
48. Waheed, K. Unemployment and Livelihood Support. In No Poverty; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A.,
Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T., Eds.; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–10. [CrossRef]
49. Wole-Alo, F.; Falase, O.E.; Olaseinde, A.T. Assessing the Future of Agriculture in the Hands of Rural Youth in Oriade Local
Government Area Of Osun State, Nigeria. Int. J. Agr. Ext. 2016, 4, 105–110.
50. Anosike, V.; Fasona, M. Gender Dimensions of UrbanCommercial Farming in Lagos, Nigeria. UA-MAGAZINE 2004, 12, 27–28.
Foods 2022, 11, 3987 15 of 15

51. Enete, A.A.; Madu, I.I.; Mojekwu, J.C.; Onyekuru, A.; Onwubuya, E.A.; Eze, F. Indigenous Agricultural Adaptation to Climate
Change: Study of Southeast Nigeria. Afr. Technol. Policy Stud. Netw. 2011, 6, 11–17.
52. National Bureau of Statistics. Annual Abstract Of Statistics; National Bureau of Statistics: Abuja, Nigeria, 2019; pp. 155–180.
Available online: https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary/read/1241069 (accessed on 23 November 2022).
53. National Bureau of Statistics. Annual Abstract of Statistics; National Bureau of Statistics: Abuja, Nigeria, 2011. Available online:
https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/Annual_Abstract_of_Statistics_2011.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2022).
54. CBN. Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin; Central Bank of Nigeria: Abuja, Nigeria, 2016. Available online: http://statistics.
cbn.gov.ng/cbn-onlinestats/DataBrowser.aspx (accessed on 23 November 2022).
55. Lagos Bureau of Statistics. Digest of Statistics; Ministry of Economic Planning and Budget: Ikeja, Nigeria; Lagos, Nigeria,
2016. Available online: http://mepb.lagosstate.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2017/08/Y2016-Digest-of-Statistics.pdf
(accessed on 23 November 2022).