Science Progress (2014), 97(2), 97 – 153

Doi:10.3184/003685014X13994567941465

Soil erosion, climate change and global food security:

challenges and strategies
CHRISTOPHER J. RHODES

Professor Chris Rhodes has a visiting position at the University of

Reading and is Director of Fresh-lands Environmental Actions. He has
catholic scientific interests (www.fresh-lands.com) which cover radiation
chemistry, catalysis, zeolites, radioisotopes, free radicals and electron
spin resonance spectroscopy, which more recently have developed
into aspects of environmental decontamination and the production of
sustainable fuels. Chris has given numerous radio and televised interviews
concerning environmental issues, both in Europe and in the USA. Latest invitations include a
series of international Café Scientifique lectures regarding the impending depletion of world oil
and the need to develop oil-independent, sustainable societies. He has published more than 200
peer-reviewed scientific articles and five books. He is also a published novelist, journalist and poet.
E‑mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

An overview is presented of the determined degree of global land degradation (principally occurring
through soil erosion), with some consideration of its possible impact on global food security. Most
determinations of the extent of land degradation (e.g. GLASOD) have been made on the basis of
“expert judgement” and perceptions, as opposed to direct measurements of this multifactorial
phenomenon. More recently, remote sensing measurements have been made which indicate that
while some regions of the Earth are “browning” others are “greening”. The latter effect is thought
to be due to fertilisation of the growth of biomass by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, and
indeed the total amount of global biomass was observed to increase by 3.8% during the years
1981 – 2003. Nonetheless, 24% of the Earth’s surface had occasioned some degree of degradation
in the same time period. It appears that while long-term trends in NDVI (normalised difference
vegetation index) derivatives are only broad indicators of land degradation, taken as a proxy,
the NDVI/NPP (net primary productivity) trend is able to yield a benchmark that is globally
consistent and to illuminate regions in which biologically significant changes are occurring. Thus,
attention may be directed to where investigation and action at the ground level is required, i.e.
to potential “hot spots” of land degradation and/or erosion. The severity of land degradation
through soil erosion, and an according catastrophic threat to the survival of humanity may in part
have been overstated, although the rising human population will impose inexorable demands for
what the soil can provide. However, the present system of industrialised agriculture would not be
possible without plentiful provisions of cheap crude oil and natural gas to supply fuels, pesticides,
herbicides and fertilisers. It is only on the basis of these inputs that it has been possible for the
human population to rise above 7 billion. Hence, if the cheap oil and gas supply fails, global
agriculture fails too, with obvious consequences. Accordingly, on grounds of stabilising the climate,
preserving the environment, and ensuring the robustness of the global food supply, maintaining
and building good soil, in particular improving its SOM content and hence its structure, is highly
desirable. Those regions of the world that are significantly degraded are unlikely to support a
massive population increase (e.g. Africa, whose population is predicted to grow from its present

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 97

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 97 04/06/2014 13:37:36

 1.1 billion to 4.2 billion by 2100), in which case a die-off or mass migration might be expected, if
population control is not included explicitly in future plans to achieve food security.

Keywords: soil organic matter, global warming, climate change, global food security, land degra-
dation, soil degradation, soil erosion, population

1. Introduction
There are particular instances in history, where publication of a book has endowed a
critical shift in human thinking as its legacy. Man and Nature; Or Physical Geography
as Modified by Human Action is one such example, written by George Perkins Marsh.
Published1 in 1864, this is probably the first time that the effects of human actions on
the environment were documented, hence auguring‑in what we now think of as the
conservation movement. It was Marsh’s thesis that ancient Mediterranean civilisations
collapsed as a result of land degradation: deforestation caused soils to become eroded, so
declining in their productivity. Marsh observed that the same trends were occurring in the
USA, as he describes in the following words:
“With the disappearance of the forest, all is changed... The face of the earth is no
longer a sponge, but a dust heap, and the floods which the waters of the sky pour
over it hurry swiftly along the slopes, carrying in suspension vast quantities of earthly
particles which increase the abrading power and mechanical force of the current, and
augmented by the sand and gravel of falling banks, fill the beds of the streams, divert
them into new channels and obstruct their outlets...
From these causes, there is constant degradation of the uplands, and a consequent
elevation of the beds of the water-courses and of lakes by the deposition of the mineral
and vegetable matter carried down by the waters...
The washing of soil from the mountains leaves bare ridges of sterile rock, and the
rich organic mould which covered them, now swept down into the dank low-grounds,
promotes a luxuriance of aquatic vegetation that breeds fever and more insidious
forms of mortal disease by its decay, and thus the earth is rendered no longer fit for the
habitation of man.”
Soil is the fragile, living skin of the Earth. Consensus of opinion is that land
degradation is a major threat to the environment and a potentially significant limitation to
the likely success of feeding a human species that is becoming not only more populous
(9.6 billion by 2050), but more affluent. The details, however, are complex, disputed
and multifarious. In particular, estimates of the extent of soil erosion (by both water and
wind), thought to be a principal cause of land degradation, and the provision of a global
view of the situation are debatable quantities, since in reality, the process varies according
to region, areal dimension and timescale. At issue too is determining the degree to which
land is degraded and an exact relation of this to the loss of its agricultural productivity,
since there are often insufficient hard data from which firm conclusions can be drawn. At
one extreme, it has been proposed that around one third of the world’s available arable
land has fallen victim to soil erosion in a 40 year period, and that globally soil is “lost” at
a mean rate of 17 tonnes per hectare per year (t/ha/yr). Others argue that the latter is an
extravagant claim, being based on data derived from a limited number of measurements
made in a small region of central Belgium, and cannot be taken to represent an “average
rate of soil loss for Europe”, let alone for the wider world. A detailed compilation, based
on data from a large number of measurements taken across the European continent,
98 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 98 04/06/2014 13:37:36

 suggests that a more realistic value for the rate of soil erosion is nearer 1 – 5 t/ha/yr which
is, nonetheless, greater than the natural rate of formation of new soil. It should be noted
that “soil erosion” is a technical term and refers to soil that is moved around over an area,
but which is not necessarily removed from it and deposited elsewhere. In addition, soil
which is lost may be replaced by soil that has been removed from some other location, and
so the net loss might be mitigated. Extreme events (e.g. floods, tornadoes) will move far
more soil in a short period than is implied in quoting units such as t/ha/yr, which is merely
an average rate of loss over a far longer timescale (usually of several years or more).
The use (or misuse) of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and modified versions
of it, is also the subject of some debate regarding just how valid its predictions are of the
rate of soil loss at the behest of particular influences that are ascribed by its parameters.
The results seem to vary according to exactly where and under what circumstances the
USLE is being applied, and in many instances it works very well but in others it fares less
adequately. Determinations of the amount of soil being removed are often made on the
basis of the amount of sediment that is deposited from some defined source. Discrepancies
may be identified, however, since not all of the soil that is removed may end up at a single
destination (e.g. a river delta), but some of it can become deposited/trapped in additional
locations. That the presence of soil organic matter (SOM) is essential for the fertility of a
soil has been known since the dawn of agriculture, and that the latter is impaired by the
loss of SOM. The term soil organic carbon (SOC) refers to the elemental carbon content
of a soil: this is distributed in different pools. Many of the world’s soils are depleted in
SOC, some of them severely, a situation that is exacerbated by industrialised agricultural
practices, and restoring the SOC, ideally through the products of photosynthesis, yields
many separately identifiable but interconnected benefits. Thus, by increasing the SOC,
the structure of the soil is improved, which increases its holding capacity for water, and
allows better drainage, hence there is more groundwater and less flooding, while droughts
are mitigated. The agricultural productivity of the soil is heightened, enlarging crop yields,
and soil erosion is attenuated, especially if the ground is also covered by mulching or with
cover crops. The productivity of degraded lands may be restored through increasing their
SOC content, giving better soil and water quality. The improved soil structure leads to
a better retention of water and nutrients, and smaller inputs onto the farm of oil-based
fuels, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, while biodiversity is enhanced. The term
“biodiversity” does not only refer to what is visible above the ground, but also to the root
systems of plants, and their accompanying fungal rhizosphere which is an essential part
of the soil food web. The importance of rebuilding the soil food web – the ecosystem of
microbes, and larger creatures that dwell in soil – is central to maintaining food production
in perpetuity, i.e. achieving a system that is truly sustainable.
Of potentially great environmental significance is the prospect that climate change
might be mitigated through the removal of atmospheric carbon, taken up by plants through
photosynthesis, which is then stored in the soil. Afforestation/reforestation is considered
a key action in storing carbon in biomass (trees) and in soils. Sound management
practices offer the potential to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and it is the latter
that threatens to increase the potential for soil erosion, diminished soil quality, lower
agricultural productivity, with expectedly adverse impacts on food security and global
sustainability. Hence this provides one of the more severe tests that might be imposed
on humans during the remainder of the 21st century: not only must we mitigate climate
change but accept the reality of it and adapt our behaviour and practices to best effect.
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 99

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 99 04/06/2014 13:37:36

 Relevant management practices are those pertaining to carbon, nitrogen, manure, low-
input systems (also known as sustainable agriculture) and grazing land. Management
choices over conservation practices such as no‑till, conservation agriculture, and
returning crop residue (rubble) to the field to improve nutrient recycling can influence
positively carbon sequestration and assist the mitigation of, and our adaptation to climate
change. Additionally, management of grasslands, restoration of degraded or desertified
lands, nitrogen management, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, precision conservation
management on a field and/or watershed scale, along with other management choices
can also aid in this cause. Management for climate change mitigation and adaptation is
essential for environmental conservation, sustainability of cropping systems, improving
the quality of soil and water, and ensuring food security.
According to estimates, some 2 – 3 billion tonnes of carbon per annum might be stored
in soils for the next 50 years. This should be compared with a current anthropogenic
carbon emission level of ca 9 billion tonnes/yr, of which around 50% is absorbed by
existing terrestrial sinks, and hence around half the remainder could be drawn from the
atmosphere and stored in soils, should prevailing emissions continue. However, it is
practically certain that they will not, because our use of the fossil fuels (gas, oil and coal)
will fall dramatically during this century, meaning that a potential draw-down of CO2
from the atmosphere is possible, perhaps by 50 ppm. While it is derived from biomass,
biochar (the name specifically applied to charcoal when it is employed as a soil amending
agent) requires energy to run the pyrolysis units that produce it. Biochar is most effective
in improving the quality of poor soils, in which it seems to increase nutrient and water
retention, and stimulates the growth of microbes in the soil, including mycorrhizal fungi,
which both improves the soil structure and fertility and aids the decomposition (or
immobilisation) of pollutant materials as a bioremediation strategy. Permaculture may
offer a host of advantages, including the production of food using reduced inputs of fuels,
water and fertilisers, and an absence of pesticides and herbicides, while simultaneously
building SOC. Though more readily applicable on smaller areas than are employed in
most contemporary farming, such an approach taken by billions of individuals could
prove of great significance in ensuring future food security and community resilience. It
would be an oversight too, should “seed saving” not be mentioned in a general discussion
of future food production. A consideration of these interrelated matters provides the
essential substance of this review.

2. Soil
Civilisations, throughout history, have thrived or fallen according to the goodness of
their soils2, and our ability to feed ourselves and our animals depends on a sufficient
access to high quality, fertile soil. Jethro Tull (1674 – 1741) introduced an improved
seed-drill that enabled an efficient and consistent planting of seeds, such that the latter
were used less wastefully. It was Tull, however, who conceived the erroneous belief that
weed-seeds were introduced from manure, and that fields should be heavily ploughed
in order to pulverise the soil and release nutrients from it. Guided by this line of
thinking, in the 20th century, farmers ploughed fields well beyond the degree necessary
to control weeds, and by a combination of such over-ploughing and drought, the Dust
Bowls were created in the prairie regions of the Central United States and Canada. The
social consequences of the latter were famously dramatised by John Steinbeck in his
1939 novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
100 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 100 04/06/2014 13:37:36

 Soil2 is made up of layers (soil horizons) which mainly consist of minerals that
differ from their primary materials in texture, structure, colour, porosity, consistency,
reactivity (pH, redox behaviour), and in chemical, biological and other physical
characteristics. Soil is the final result of the consequences, in combination, of climate
(temperature, precipitation), relief (slope), organisms (flora and fauna), primary materials
(original minerals), and timescale. The material we know as soil (Figure 1) consists of
rock particles that have been altered by chemical and mechanical processes, including
weathering (disintegration) and accompanying mechanisms of erosion (movement). Soil
forms a porous structure and may be envisaged as a three-state system (Figure 2): solid(s)
(minerals – clay, silt and sand), liquid (water), and gas (air). The density of most soils lies
in the range 1 – 2 g cm – ³.
A good quality soil contains (by volume) 45% minerals, 25% water, 25% air, and 5%
of organic material. In a given soil, the mineral and organic components are considered to
be constant, while the percentages of water and air may vary, such that the increase in one
is balanced by the reduction in the other, i.e. air may be driven out by water, or water be
replaced by air as the soil drains. The simple mineral mixture of sand, silt, and clay will
evolve, as time passes, into a soil profile that contains two or more horizons, which differ
in certain properties, as indicated above. The depth of the horizons can vary considerably
from one to another and the boundaries between them are rarely sharply defined. Since

Figure 1 Typical soil horizons.

Courtesy of Designua/Shutterstock.com

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 101

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 101 04/06/2014 13:37:40

 Figure 2 A soil texture diagram – soil types according to their clay, silt and sand composition, as used by
the USDA, redrawn from the USDA webpage: http://soils.usda.gov/education/resources/lessons/texture/.
Credit Mikenorton. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/SoilTexture_USDA.png

Figure 3 Laterite road near Kounkane, Upper Casamance (Senegal), with its iron-rich (red) soil.
Credit: Dorothy Voorhees.

102 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 102 04/06/2014 13:37:43

 the pore space of soil contains both gases and water, the aeration of the soil influences the
health of the flora and fauna it contains, but also the emission of greenhouse gases. The
colour of soil depends principally on the minerals it contains. Many of the colours are due
to the presence of various iron minerals (Figure 3), and the development and distribution
of colours in a soil profile are a consequence of chemical and biological weathering of the
primary minerals present, particularly through redox reactions.
The soil-evolution process is most strongly influenced by the presence of water, since
this medium can promote the growth of plant-life, the leaching of minerals from the soil
profile, and the transportation and immobilisation of various constituent components.
Clay and humus are colloidal particles (< 1 µm in size) present in soil, both of which act
as a repository for nutrients and moisture, and serve to buffer the variation in nature and
concentration of cations and anions that are present in the soil. Thus, the contribution
provided by these materials to the health and properties of soil is far in excess of what
might be deduced from their relative proportion by mass of the soil. Colloids are able
to solubilise, initially immobile, ions in response to changes in soil pH, and changes
in plant root behaviour. The availability of nutrients is also influenced by the soil pH.
Most nutrients originate from minerals and are stored in organic material, both living
(e.g. bacteria) and dead, and on colloidal particles as ions. The action of microbes on
organic matter and minerals may release nutrients, render them immobile, or cause them
to be lost from the soil by leaching when they are converted to soluble forms, or by their
conversion to gases. Most of the available nitrogen in soils originates from the “fixation”
of atmospheric nitrogen gas by bacteria. Of all the components, it is water that has the
greatest influence on the formation and fertility of soil, even more so than soil organic
matter (SOM)2.

2.1. Organisms

The activities of plants, animals, insects, fungi, bacteria, and humans too, all play a part
in the formation of soil2. Fauna, e.g. earthworms, centipedes, beetles and microbes, mix
soils by forming burrows and pores, which allow moisture and gases to diffuse through
the soil matrix. As plant-roots grow in soil, channels are also created. Plants with deep
taproots can penetrate the different soil layers by many metres and draw‑up nutrients
from considerable depths. Organic matter is contributed to the soil by plant-roots that
extend near the surface, where they are quite readily decomposed. Micro-organisms,
including fungi and bacteria, facilitate chemical exchanges between roots and soil and act
as a reserve of nutrients. Soil erosion may arise from the mechanical removal, by human
activities, of plants that provide natural surface cover. The different soil layers may be
mixed together by microorganisms, a process which stimulates soil formation, since less-
extensively weathered material is mixed with more well-developed layers closer to the
surface. Some soils may contain up to one million species of microbes per gram (most
of these species being unclassified), making soil the most abundant ecosystem on planet
Earth. It is thought that one teaspoonful of soil may contain up to a billion organisms,
which form the soil food web (Figure 4).
Vegetation can prevent soil-erosion caused by excessive rain and resulting surface
runoff. Plants are also able to shade soils, keeping them cooler and reducing the loss,
by evaporation, of soil moisture; yet conversely, through transpiration, plants may
also cause soils to lose moisture. Plants can synthesise and release chemical agents
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 103

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 103 04/06/2014 13:37:43

 The Soil Food Web
Nematodes Arthropods
Shredders
Root-feeders

Arthropods
Predators
Birds
Nematodes
Fungal- and
Fungi bacterial-feeders
Mycorrhizal fungi
Plants Saprophytic fungi
Shoots and
roots Nematodes
Predators Animals
Protozoa
Amoebae, flagellates
Organic Matter and ciliates
Waste, residue and metabolites Bacteria
from plants, animals and
microbes.
First Second Third Fourth Fifth and higher
trophic level: trophic level: trophic level: trophic level: trophic levels:
Photosynthesizers Decomposers Shredders Higher level Higher level
Mutualists Predators predators predators
Pathogens, Parasites Grazers
Root-feeders

Figure 4 The soil food web. Adapted from USDA.

(including enzymes) – “exudates” – through their extended root-systems, which are able
to decompose minerals and so improve the structure of the soil. Dead plants, fallen leaves
and stems begin their decomposition on the surface, where fungi and other organisms
feed on them and mix the organic material into the upper soil layers; these additional
organic compounds become part of the soil formation process. In addition to the essential
characteristics of a particular soil – e.g. its density, depth, chemistry, pH, temperature and
moisture – the precise type and quantity of vegetation that may be grown at a particular
location depends on a combination of the prevailing climate, land topography and
biological factors.

2.2. Time
Soil formation is a time-dependent process that depends on the interplay of various
different and interacting factors2. Soil is a continuously evolving medium, and it requires
around 200 – 1,000 years to form a layer of fertile soil 2.5 cm (one inch) thick. Fresh
material, e.g. as recently deposited from a flood, shows no trace of soil development
because insufficient time has passed for the material to form a structure that may be later
defined as soil. Rather, the original soil surface is buried, and the new deposit must be
transformed afresh. Over a period ranging from hundreds to thousands of years, the soil
will develop a profile that depends on the nature and degree of biota and climate. Soil-
forming mechanisms continue to proceed, even on “stable” landscapes that may endure
sometimes for millions of years. In a relentless process, some materials are deposited
on the surface while others are blown or washed from the surface. At the behest of such
104 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 104 04/06/2014 13:37:46

 additions, removals, and alterations, soils are always subject to new conditions. It is a
combination of climate, topography and biological activity that decides if these changes
are rapid or protracted.

3. A preliminary overview of land degradation and soil degradation

Land degradation is a phenomenon that is becoming more severe in various regions of the
world. Remote sensing measurements (http://www.isric.org/projects/land-degradation-
assessment-drylands-glada) indicate that more than 20% of all cultivated areas, 30%
of forests and 10% of grasslands are undergoing degradation3,4. Land degradation and
desertification are thought to affect 2.6 billion people in more than one hundred nations,
spanning in excess of one third of the land surface of the Earth5. The global scale of
these issues was reinforced at the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification,
the Convention on Biodiversity, the Kyoto protocol on global climate change and the
millennium development goal6, all of which are worsened by the activities of humans.
Various inappropriate uses of land may cause soil, water and vegetative cover to become
degraded, with the loss of both soil and the biological diversity of flora, with impacts
on the structure and functions of ecosystems7. Once land has become degraded, it is
more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, particularly rising temperatures and
droughts of greater severity. The entire regional environment is encompassed by the
term land degradation; however, individual aspects of soils, water resources (surface,
ground), forests (woodlands), grasslands (rangelands), croplands (rainfed, irrigated) and
biodiversity (animals, vegetative cover, soil) are implicit here8. Land degradation is a
complex process, and involves a number of interactive amendments in the properties of
the soil and vegetation – being physical, chemical and biological, in their nature. Hence,
the definition of land degradation varies from one region to another, according to the
emphasis on particular topics, but the effect is most severe in drylands, and thus the
40% of the earth’s surface that contains them9. It has been estimated that around 73%
of rangelands in dryland areas, 47% of marginal rain-fed croplands and a significant
percentage of irrigated croplands10 have been degraded. 20% of the world’s pastures and
rangelands are degraded through overgrazing, and it is estimated that, through erosion and
both chemical and physical damage, some 65% of agricultural land in Africa is degraded,
along with 31% of the continent’s pasture lands and 19% of its forests and woodlands10.
Overgrazing has primarily been brought culpable for land degradation in Africa, i.e.
human impacts, but more recent thinking is that climatic factors are those most important,
particularly rainfall variability and long-term drought10. It is in Sub-Saharan Africa that
land degradation is most extensive, where it impacts on some 20 – 50% of the land and
therefore affects the daily lives of well above 200 million people7.
The definition of land degradation is the reduction in the capacity of the land to
provide ecosystem goods and services and assure its functions over a period of time for
the beneficiaries of these11. Land degradation is particularly significant in dryland regions,
where large areas and populations are impacted upon. An expanding population, and the
migration of large numbers of people into drylands during long wet periods tend to maroon
significant numbers there in dry periods. Alternative uses of land, e.g. the introduction of
irrigated and non-irrigated cash crops, and the use of water for industrial and urban purposes,
at the expense of rural agricultural producers, tend to disrupt traditional production chains
in dryland regions. Indeed, entire production systems may break down if these effects
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 105

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 105 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 are not mitigated or compensated for. By removing protective cover, deep ploughing,
heavy grazing and deforestation, the soil is left particularly vulnerable to wind erosion
when droughts are severe and protracted. Overgrazing prevents or delays the regrowth of
vegetation, or favours only unpalatable shrubs, especially during long droughts or close
to water points. Land degradation may cause a reduction in the productivity of land with
associated socio-economic difficulties, e.g. lack of certainty over food security, migration
of populations, and that ecosystems may be incompletely developed and damaged. It has
been estimated that, worldwide, around $40 billion is lost annually to land degradation
– if the embodied costs of increased fertiliser use, and the loss of biodiversity and of
unique landscapes were accounted for, this figure would undoubtedly be far greater. To
reclaim degraded land is very costly, and if severely degraded, it may no longer provide
an essential range of ecosystem functions and services, resulting in a loss of the goods
and manifold additional potential environmental, social, economic and non-material
bestowals that are necessary for the maintenance and development of society12. There
is, however, a confusing use of terminology, caused in part by the jargon of different
disciplines, so over-complicating the compilation of an overview of this broad subject,
which aims to compare “like with like”, not “chalk with cheese”.
“Land” may be understood11 to refer to an ecosystem, and to include land, landscape,
terrain, vegetation, water, and climate, while “soil” is a specific entity and a component
of land. Degradation or desertification of land refers to an irreversible decline in its
“biological potential”: a term which, in itself, resists definition due to its dependence
upon a multitude of interacting factors. Land degradation has no single and simply
measured marker, but rather the term points to the fact that one of the land resources
(soil, water, vegetation, rocks, air, climate, relief) has altered disadvantageously. As
an example, a landslide may be seen as a visible process of land degradation, but the
land may eventually recover its productivity. Indeed, the “scars” from old landslides
may prove more productive than the neighbouring land. According to the UN/FAO
definition13, the term “land degradation” generally signifies the temporary or permanent
decline in the productive capacity of the land. Another definition of land degradation is:
“The aggregate diminution of the productive potential of the land, including its major
uses (rain-fed, arable, irrigated, rangeland, forest), its farming systems (e.g. smallholder
subsistence) and its value as an economic resource.” The broader connection between
degradation (usually a result of land use practices) and the consequences of it in terms
of land use is key to most published definitions of land degradation. The use of the term
land degradation, in contrast to soil degradation, allows the bigger picture to be seen:
to incorporate natural resources, such as climate, water, landforms and vegetation. This
definition comprises the productivity of grassland and forest resources, and also the
productivity of cropland. Since under different circumstances, land degradation may be
reversible or irreversible, some definitions draw a distinction between the two cases.
Given sufficient time, all degradation is reversible, and hence the definition is a matter
both of the particular focus and the timescale over which the effect is being considered.
Soil erosion is a principal cause of land degradation, but it must be acknowledged that
there are additional or simultaneous influences, e.g. lowering of the water table and
deforestation, that may impair the productive capacity of cropland, rangeland and forests.
Hence, the “productive capacity of land” cannot be determined from any one measure,
and instead land degradation is estimated11 using “indicators”, which are potential signals
that land degradation has taken place, rather than observations of degradation per se.
106 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 106 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 For example, an “indicator” that land degradation is occurring further upslope may be
provided by the accumulation of sediment further down. An indication of a reduction in
the quality of soil might be falling crop yields, which may be a result of soil degradation
and land degradation. Since the soil mediates collectively (holistically) many essential
processes involving vegetation growth, overland flow of water, infiltration, land use and
land management, its quality is a prime indicator of land degradation – therefore, when
soil is degraded the land is too. Evidence from the soil (mainly soil degradation) and from
plants growing on the soil (soil productivity) are prime indicators of land degradation.
In addition, the definitions of “dryland” are variable, which serves further to confound
the situation. In regard to the severity of land degradation, two basic schools of thought
have emerged. Economists take the view that if the situation were really as serious as
others claim, market forces would have resolved it by now, and in support of this, it is
argued that land managers (e.g. farmers) would not let their land degrade to a degree that
a loss of their profits would ensue. However, this does not take account of an imminent
failing supply of plentiful cheap oil14 and also potentially one of phosphorus-based
fertiliser15: commodities without which the current agricultural situation could not exist.
In many instances, it is only through such inputs that accepted yields can be maintained,
and if a farmer decides to turn his industrial farm into an organic farm, he must initially
suffer reduced crop yields. Those “others”, tending to come from backgrounds of ecology,
soil science and agronomy, believe that there is a serious threat to feeding the growing
global population posed by land degradation, in terms of reduced biomass yields and by
a compromised environment.
As a consequence of the variation in definitions and terminologies employed by
different workers, the statistics pertaining to both the extent of land degradation and its
rate of advance, vary considerably. In addition, statements are often made, particularly in
the media, such as:
“Globally, we are losing 10 million hectares of fertile soil each year. That is
30 soccer fields per minute...”, or “75 billion tonnes of soil, the equivalent of nearly
10 million hectares of arable land, is lost to erosion, waterlogging and salination;
another 20 million hectares is abandoned because its soil quality has been degraded.”
It is hard to know what precisely is being described here. A direct translation of a
mass of soil to a land area implies that there is a given, average depth of soil physically
removed, waterlogged or salinised, but as we shall see, the actual and global situation is less
straightforward. If “soil” is being used as a synonym for “arable land”, the loss of 75 billion
tonnes would accord with an average soil depth of, 75 × 109 t / 10 × 106 ha = 7,500 t ha – 1;
assuming an average soil density of 1.4 g cm – 3, this accords with a volume of 5,357 m3.
This is distributed over 1 ha = 10,000 m2 = 1 × 108 cm2, and so we have 5,357 m3 × 1 × 106
(cm3 m – 3) / 1 × 108 cm2 ha – 1 = 53.6 cm (i.e. half a metre), which does not seem realistic. It
is probably neither accurate nor appropriate to compare the mass of soil that is thought
lost to erosion (blown or washed away) with a total area directly of land that has become
unproductive. It appears most likely that the “lost” 10 million ha should not be compared
directly with the mass of soil that is allegedly “lost”: the latter being a global phenomenon.
Thus, the global area of arable land amounts to 1,387 million ha, and if 75 billion
tonnes of soil were being lost over this expanse, it would equate with a soil depth of:
(75 × 109 t / 1.4 g cm – 3) × 1 × 106 (cm3 m – 3) / 1,387 × 106 ha × 1 × 108 cm2 ha – 1 = 0.39 cm
(4 mm), which might appear more reasonable, while another estimate, that the loss over
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 107

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 107 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 the world’s arable land is 24 billion tonnes would accord with an average loss of a little
over 1 mm, which might be imperceptible. However, as I discuss later, the rate of “loss” of
soil occurs quite variously according to climate and location (and also timescale), across
the globe, and not all the soil that is moved over an area, is actually removed from it.

4. Degradation of soil
4.1 Mechanisms of soil degradation
Soil degradation is a principal cause of land degradation, and soils may be degraded via
several identifiable and different mechanisms, as we now outline under the following
headings13.
4.1.1 Water erosion
This is the removal of soil particles by the physical action of water (Figure 5). This is
normally manifested as sheet erosion (a more or less uniform removal of a thin layer of
topsoil), rill erosion (small channels in the field) or gully erosion (large channels, similar
to incised rivers). One highly significant aspect of water erosion is that it is the finer and
more fertile fraction of the soil that is removed selectively.

Figure 5 A hillside covered in rills and gullies due to erosion processes caused by rainfall. Credit: Ivar
Leidus. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Rummu_aherainem%C3%A4gi2.jpg

4.1.2 Wind erosion

This is where soil particles are physically removed by the action of wind, and it is fine
to medium sized sand particles that are most affected. This normally is sheet erosion,
involving the removal of thin layers of soil, but hollows and other features can also be
sculpted.
4.1.3 Loss of soil fertility
This may be defined as the degradation of the physical, biological and chemical properties
of soil, which leads to a loss in its productivity. Additional factors include: (a) the loss of
SOM, which reduces the biological activity of soil; (b) a further consequence of declining
SOM is the deterioration in the physical properties of soil, e.g. its structure, degree of
aeration and ability to hold water and to drain effectively; (c) soil nutrient levels that are
vital for the healthy growth of plants may become deficient, or rise to toxic amounts;
(d) substances that are toxic may accumulate in the soil e.g. from pollution, or the over-
application of fertilisers.
4.1.4 Waterlogging
When the level of groundwater close to the soil surface rises, or surface water is not
adequately drained, the soil may become waterlogged. In this case, the root zone becomes
saturated by water, typically resulting in an oxygen deficiency.
108 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 108 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 4.1.5 Accumulation of salts
When there is an increase in the concentration of salt in the soil water solution, the effect
is termed salinisation. In contrast, when the number of sodium cations (Na+) on the soil
particles increases, the effect is called sodication, and the resulting soil is termed to
be “sodic”. It is poor irrigation management which, more often than not, is to blame
for salinisation while sodication tends to be a naturally occurring feature, especially in
regions with a fluctuating water table.
4.1.6 “Soil burial”
This is also known as sedimentation, and may occur when fertile soil is buried under less
fertile sediments (by flooding); or it can be a consequence of winds which blow sand over
fertile grazing lands, or catastrophic events, e.g. eruptions from volcanoes.
The above are the primary causes of land degradation, but we may also note:
4.1.7 Water table lowering
This is often a result of groundwater extraction at a greater rate than the water table can
be recharged by natural processes.
4.1.8 Loss of vegetative cover
Leaving soil bare is a principal route to erosion and degradation. By applying vegetative
cover, the soil is protected from erosion both by wind and by water. In addition, organic
material is supplied, which assists in maintaining sufficient nutrients to serve healthy
plant growth. The roots of plants contribute to a good structure of the soil and aid water
infiltration.
4.1.9 Increased stoniness and rockiness
When the levels of soil erosion are extreme, stones and rock may be left bare of soil and
exposed. While it is helpful to identify the different kinds of soil degradation, as we have
under the foregoing headings, it is a fact that there is frequently a synergy between them.
Thus we may note that at the front of a storm there are strong winds, and so wind erosion
and water erosion may occur simultaneously. In a “thin end of the wedge” manner, once a
soil has undergone some degree of erosion, by whatever means, it is left more vulnerable
to further and more rapid erosion than another soil that has suffered a lesser degree of
erosion, although the latter may be similar in all other respects. The level of SOM is a
pronounced indicator of erosion susceptibility, and soils in which the concentration has
become less than ca 2% are particularly prone to erosion, because the soil aggregates are
less tightly bound, meaning a greater likelihood of individual soil particles being removed.
Slopes that are steep, regions where the rainfall is heavy and how much SOM there is, are
significant determinants as to whether and how fast degradation of the soil will occur. While
less severe types of erosion can be reversed through changes in management practices
(e.g. growing cover crops), at a more serious level and over a long time, the process is
effectively irreversible, because any remedial strategy must be measured against the
relatively slow processes by which soils are created, taking perhaps hundreds or thousands
of years (particularly in cold dry climates) to form a mere few centimetres of soil.

4.2 Human influences

Human activities can influence profoundly the evolution of soils. The construction of
“tarmac” roads increases the area of impermeable surface, causing streaming and ground
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 109

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 109 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 loss. Soil erosion is accelerated by particular farming practices, including an increase of
the size of fields, with the removal of hedges and ditches, while meadows are converted
to ploughed fields, and farming spring cultures (e.g. sunflower, corn, beet) is on the
increase, leaving the ground naked over the winter, when conditions of rain and wind
are at their most forceful. Unsustainable methods of modern agriculture are the single
major contributor to global soil erosion. When agricultural lands are tilled, their soil
is broken into finer particles, a problem that has been accentuated through the use of
mechanised farm machinery that permits deep ploughing16. The latter increases the area
of soil that is exposed to water erosion. Mono-cropping, farming on steep slopes, the
use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers (which destroy the soil food web and hence
those microbes whose exudates bind soil together), row-cropping and surface irrigation
methods all take a further toll on the soil and contribute to its erosion. The loss of nutrients
from soils is quite specific and it is in the finer soil that the loss, e.g. of phosphorus, occurs
more greatly. Tillage increases wind erosion rates, because the exposed soil becomes
dehydrated and breaks up into smaller particles that are easily swept away by the wind.
The latter situation is worsened when trees are removed from agricultural fields, so that
the wind can travel over greater distances and build‑up to higher speeds. The rates of
erosion are increased by overgrazing, which both removes vegetative cover and causes
the soil to become compacted.

4.3 Deforestation
When a forest is undisturbed, its floor soil is covered by layers of leaf litter and humus,
which between them form a resisting shield against the impact of raindrops. Both layers
are porous and allow rainwater to percolate into the soil beneath them, rather than
washing over the surface to form runoff. Before they impact the ground, the raindrops
are reduced in their kinetic energy by striking the foliage (canopy) above. Having fallen
through around 8 m (26 feet) the raindrops achieve their terminal velocity, and since
forest canopies are usually higher than this, the terminal velocity may again be met lower
down, even after striking the canopy. However, the intact forest floor, with its layers of
leaf litter and organic matter, is still able to absorb the impact of the rainfall and so it
is this, principally, that resists soil erosion more than the overlying foliage17. The rates
of erosion are increased when deforestation takes place, because the humus and litter
layers are lost from the soil surface, thus exposing it to rainfall. Through the loss of the
vegetative cover, and severe soil compaction from logging equipment, the process of
erosion is exacerbated. The occurrence of fires can lead to appreciable further erosion,
especially if followed by heavy rainfall. The slash and burn method, as applied to tropical
forests, is one of the main contributors to global soil loss through erosion, which has
rendered complete regions of some counties unproductive. The Madagascar high central
plateau has become devoid of vegetation, which amounts to around 10% of the nation’s
land area, where there are furrows caused by gully erosion more than 50 m in depth and
1 km in length.

4.4 Urbanisation and road building.

The process of urbanisation denudes the land of vegetative cover, which changes patterns
of drainage, and the construction phase itself causes the soil to become compacted. The
application of a layer of asphalt or concrete, which is impermeable, both raises the volume
110 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 110 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 of surface runoff water and allows faster wind speeds to be developed over the surface.
Both these effects enhance the degree of soil erosion, and as an additional consequence,
the sediment in runoff water from urban environments is frequently tainted with fuel,
oil, and other toxic materials. Neighbouring watersheds are impacted upon because the
volume and rate of water that flows through them is changed, and they become filled with
chemically polluted sedimentation. In addition to degrading the land that it flows over,
the increased flow of water through local waterways also makes the rate of bank erosion
more severe18.

5. Climate change

As noted later, the effects of climate change must be considered in the context of soil
erosion and land degradation: in particular a more vigorous hydrological cycle is
anticipated as a result of rising global temperatures, with much harder rainfall in some
regions19. Hence, in the absence of mitigating measures, the future rate of soil erosion
can be expected to increase on the global scale. There are a number of prevailing factors
at play, the most significant being the erosive force of rainfall; however, we must also
consider the following: (a) the changing moisture regime might alter patterns of biomass
growth, and affect the canopy layer; (b) the latter may amend both the plant residue
decomposition rates (since the underlying processes are driven by temperature and by
moisture and are connected with the activity of soil microbes) in addition to the biomass
production rates; (c) in consequence of varying rainfall and evapotranspiration rates –
which changes infiltration and runoff ratios – the soil moisture content might be affected;
(d) a fall in the SOM content may weaken the structure of some soils, rendering them
more susceptible to erosion, and the amount of runoff could be increased as a result
of surface sealing and crusting; (e) non-erosive winter snowfall might turn into erosive
rainfall as the winter temperatures increase; (f) when permafrosts melt, a previously non-
erodible soil state can be converted to a highly erodible form; and (g) land use changes,
e.g. to grow more cereals, as the global climate and local weather patterns change, may
lead to further erosion. It has been estimated that a ca 1.7% change in soil erosion is likely
for each 1% change in total precipitation resulting from climate change20. It is common
practice to deal with a loss in soil fertility from erosion by applying greater quantities
of artificial fertilisers, which actually compounds the problem [since the soil food web
(Figure 4) dies back further2] and incurs yet more water and soil pollution, as opposed to
simply giving the land sufficient time to regenerate naturally. The relationship between
the mycorrhizal fungi in the soil and, for example, phosphate fertiliser can be thought of
as pseudo-addictive, since the fungi act symbiotically with the roots of plants, delivering
to them phosphorus (and other nutrients) drawn from the soil, in return for carbohydrate
bestowed to the fungi from the plant (formed by photosynthesis). The over-application of
artificial phosphorus discourages the growth of the fungi, with the result that the plants
become increasingly dependent on artificial phosphorus inputs.

6. Monitoring, measuring and modelling erosion.

To model erosion accurately is difficult, because of the complexity of the detailed processes
of erosion, which involve aspects of climatology, hydrology, geology, chemistry, physics,
etc. Due to the non-linear nature of erosion models, they tend to be difficult to use
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 111

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 111 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 numerically, and it is accordingly challenging or impossible to make predictions about
large scale events on the basis of results taken from plots on much smaller areas. Erosion
models are either process-based or empirically based. The former models are physically
based and provide a mathematical description of the processes of detachment, transport,
and deposition: by solving the equations that describe them, estimates are obtained of
soil loss and sediment yields that occur from a given land surface area. The science of
erosion is not sufficiently developed that some input of empirical data can be avoided.
The fundamental difference between process-based and other types of erosion models is
that the sediment continuity equation is used, as is discussed later. Empirical models relate
management and environmental factors directly to soil loss and/or sedimentary yields
on the basis of statistical methods21. A detailed review22 of process-based and empirical
erosion models has been published, including a discussion of conceptual models, which
are a kind of intermediary stage between the process-based and entirely empirical models.
The most usual model that is employed to assess the degree of erosion and to permit
an outlook toward conservation strategies is the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE),
which remains under improvement and development.

6.1 The USLE

The USLE was developed using a comprehensive range of data taken from erosion plot and
rainfall simulator experiments: in all, over 10,000 plot-years’ worth of actual data, taken
from 50 different locations in 24 US states was used to calibrate the input parameters23.
The USLE contains six factors, according to which the long-term average annual soil
loss (A) is estimated, which are: the rainfall erosivity factor (R), the soil erodibility factor
(K), the topographic factors (L and S) representing length and slope, and the cropping
management factors (C and P). The equation has the simple linear structure:
A = RKLSCP
The unit plot concept is important in the context of the USLE, and is defined as the
standard plot condition to determine the soil’s erodibility, i.e. when the LS factor = 1
(slope = 9% and length = 72.6 feet) where the plot is fallow and tillage is up and down
slope and no conservation practices are applied (CP = 1). Under these conditions:
K = A/ R
Wischmeier et al. have devised a more straightforward means for the estimation
24

of K, the soil erodibility factor, which involves the particle size of the soil, its SOM
content, soil structure and profile permeability. If sufficient information is available, K
can be approximated from a nomograph. By knowing the length and gradient of the slope,
the LS factors can be determined from a slope effect chart. The cropping management
factor (C) and conservation practices factor (P) are determined empirically from plot
data, and are described in soil loss ratios [i.e. (C or P with) /(C or P without)]. Erosion
is measured and analysed using e.g. the micro-erosion meter (MEM) and the traversing
micro-erosion meter (TMEM). The MEM has been used successfully to measure bedrock
erosion in a range of ecosystems across the globe, and is able to determine both terrestrial
and oceanic erosion. There is also the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE),
which is an extension of the USLE, and other related variants. A highly informative and
practical description of the use of the USLE can be found at: http://www.asu.edu/clas/
shesc/projects/medland/documents/soilerosion.pdf.
112 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 112 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 7. Validity of universal soil loss estimates.

Pimental et al.25 have asserted that globally, soil erosion rates are lowest in the USA
and Europe, “averaging about 17 metric tons ha – 1 yr – 1”. Boardman26 has investigated
the origin of this figure and concluded that it is actually derived from an uncritical
extrapolation of data taken from just 12 experimental plots in three small areas of central
Belgium, reported by Bollinne in his PhD thesis at the University of Liege. [A range of soil
loss of 10 – 25 t ha – 1 yr – 1 (which “average” to ca 17 t ha – 1 yr – 1) has been claimed from
Bollinne’s work25]. Hence it is of some interest to know how much erosion is actually
occurring across Europe, according to a more extensive compilation of measurements,
taken over a larger and more representative area of the continent. Indeed, the available
data indicate that the process is quite variable in its degree26, both in space and time, and
ranges from (assuming a soil density of 1.4 g cm – 3, since some data are quoted in units of
m3 ha – 1 yr – 1) < 1 t ha – 1 yr – 1, over a 90 km2 area in southern Sweden, to ca 16 t ha – 1 yr – 1
in northern France, but taken from just 33 small catchments. Arden-Clark and Evans
quote27 that erosion rates in the UK are 1 – 20 t ha – 1 yr – 1, while noting that those in the
higher part of the range are rare and localised events, and typical rates of erosion are
1 – 2 t ha – 1 yr – 1. Measurements made over a 709 km2 total area of localities in England
and Wales produce a mean28 of 3.2 t ha – 1 yr – 1. Ryszowski29 reckoned the soil erosion rate
in Poland to be 0.52 t ha – 1 yr – 1. Hence, overall, it might appear that the average value of
17 t ha – 1 yr – 1 quoted25 by Pimental et al. represents a considerable overestimate of the
rate of soil erosion in Europe. Crosson too has taken issue with the figure30, this time
as applied to soil erosion in the USA According to the USDA in 1989, an average of
17 t ha – 1 yr – 1 is moved from US croplands as a result of the combined effect of wind and
water erosion; however, Crosson cites more recent data showing that by 1992, the rate had
fallen to 13 t ha – 1 yr – 1, and refers to a paper by Lal and Stewart31 in which it is stated that,
annually, some 36 billion tonnes of soil are eroded worldwide: 10 billion tonnes from
natural phenomena and 26 billion tonnes as a result of human activities. Crosson notes
that Lal and Stewart cite a paper by Brown32 as a source for the 26 billion tonnes estimate,
but this is based on erosion measurements for the USA, which it would appear are higher
than those for Europe. At any rate the 36 billion tonnes figure is considerably less than
the 75 billion metric ton value assessed elsewhere to be removed by wind and water
erosion, and mostly from agricultural land. In their response to Crosson, Pimental et al.
assert33 that since the USA has about 11% of the world’s arable land (and approximately
the same amount of pasture land), and an estimated total soil loss of 4.5 billion tonnes per
year, assuming that the rest of the world suffers similar rates of soil loss, a total global
soil loss of 40 billion tonnes per year is indicated. They further stress that the rates of
soil erosion in Asia, Africa and South America are about double those in the USA, and
hence the 75 billion tonne annual global loss of soil appears reasonable. They defend
too, their contention that some 80% of the world’s agricultural land has been degraded,
though Crosson criticised30 this figure as a more than three-fold overestimate, based on
the GLASOD34 [Global Assessment of Soil Degradation] study by Oldman et al. which
reports that about 1.03 billion ha of agricultural land has suffered moderate-to-strong
erosion as a result of wind and water, or less than 25% of the roughly 4.5 billion ha global
land-base, under crops, pasture and range. In a later paper, Trimble and Crosson point out
the considerable disparity in quoted values for the annual soil losses through erosion from
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 113

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 113 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 croplands (442 million acres = 179 million ha) across the United States, which vary from
2 billion to 6.8 billion tons, suggesting an average annual lost soil depth of ca 1 – 3 mm35.
Some are of the opinion that the recent rates of soil erosion are as high as those in the
1930s, though others disagree35.
On the basis of on‑farm productivity effects, it was concluded that should the rates of
erosion that prevailed in 1982 continue for the next 100 years, the crop yields (output per
hectare) would be reduced only by around 2 – 4%, and hence increased federal funding to
reduce the erosion is not justified. Most of the estimations made of soil erosion are based
on models, particularly the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) although this itself has
been developed and “calibrated” using more than 10,000 plot-years’ worth of actual data,
taken from 50 different locations in 24 US states. Its successor, the Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), has been improved using further experimental data and in
two studies of measured soil loss rates, taken from over 1,700 plot-years’ worth of data
on 205 research plots in 20 locations across the USA, it was shown that the USLE and
RUSLE actually predict rates of soil loss reasonably well, even for post-1960 conditions23.
A limitation of USLE and RUSLE is that they predict the amount of soil moved on a field,
which is not necessarily the same as the amount of soil physically removed from the
field. To estimate the latter, the sediment delivery ratio (SDR) is determined. The SDR
is given by the amount of sediment delivered from an area divided by the gross erosion
of that same area. Expressed as a percentage, SDR reflects how efficient the watershed is
in moving soil particles from an area where erosion is occurring, to the location at which
the sediment yield is measured. The model assumes that a relatively small amount of
eroded soil leaves a field or stream basin, and some sediment is presumed to be deposited
by wind on the field, or along streams as alluvium. However, it is often assumed that the
USLE measures soil actually removed from the land, and the variance in SDR according
to particular conditions is not taken account of. As an example, in the 1970s, the sediment
delivery to streams from a 3 km2 area in Wisconsin amounted to just 8% of the USLE
prediction35, with the remainder thought to be stored as colluvium (loose, unconsolidated
sediments that have been deposited at the bottom of hill slopes by either rainwash,
sheetwash, slow continuous downslope creep, or a combination of these processes). In
contrast, in the 1930s, the sediment delivered was 123% of the USLE value, due to the
then frequent effect of gullying downslope from agricultural fields. Also in the 1930s, it
was common that the skies over the eastern USA were filled with enormous clouds from
the Dust Bowls, which moved out over the Atlantic Ocean, due to severe wind erosion. It
is thought that, more recently, the erosion process is due more to local redistribution than
to wholesale loss. To predict the latter phenomenon, the Wind Erosion Equation (WEE)
has been used, and as with the USLE there is a mass discontinuity problem: namely that
even though soil may be eroded from one area, most of the particles are simply moved
onto other fields, and so the net soil loss may be overestimated. It has been claimed
that large areas of the USA have annual erosion rates of > 25 tonnes ha – 1, and yet the
sediment yields were often in the range 0.5 – 2.0 t ha – 1, including a contribution from
significant erosion of the banks and stream channels35. Thus, the total sediment delivered
to streams has been reckoned at 2.7 – 4.0 billion tonnes, but the actual amount measured
at this destination is nearer 0.5 billion tonnes, with the inference that a large quantity of
the sediment must be stored in the watershed. Alternatively, as Trimble and Crosson have
stated35, the rate of soil removal may be far less than is apparent using the USLE, calling
for more field studies and monitoring of sediment mass, a view endorsed by Nearing23.
114 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 114 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 Cerdan et al. have used erosion plot data to compile a comprehensive database
with which to investigate the rates and spatial variations in sheet and rill erosion across
Europe36. It was demonstrated that land use is overwhelming in its influence on erosion
rates, which may be greater by an order of magnitude on conventionally tilled arable
land, as compared with those surfaces that are permanently covered by vegetation. The
erosion rates tend to be lower in the Mediterranean, due to the protective effect of the
rocks in the stony soils there. However, because these soils are already very thin, any
further loss of soil could be highly detrimental. The average rate of sheet and rill erosion
was determined to be ca 1.24 t ha – 1 yr – 1 for the entire area covered by the CORINE
database (essentially the whole of Europe – both eastern and western – plus Turkey), and
3.6 t ha – 1 yr – 1 for arable land. Evidently, there are “hot spots” for erosion, but these are
masked by quoting a figure for an average erosion rate for Europe. A review22 has been
published of the USLE and its family of related models, as applied to the determination of
event soil loss, and runoff. It is concluded that the predictive power of the method works
well in some locations but poorly in others. One problem in the use of the USLE to predict
event erosion is that it was originally designed to model long-term average soil loss, and
the event rainfall-runoff factor contained in it does not consider runoff explicitly. When
runoff is measured or estimated reasonably accurately, the prediction may be improved,
but in incorporating the direct runoff in the rainfall-runoff factor an impact on some of
the other factors used in the model is incurred. Parsons et al. have attempted to predict
the travel distance of different particle sizes to provide a model for the erosive impact of
specific rainfall/runoff events37: this is of particular relevance to the European situation,
in terms of the off-site impact of runoff and erosion. The model only considers simple
cases of erosion under a spatially uniform rainfall and on slopes of uniform infiltration
and gradient, but it is independent of measurement area since it rests upon the notions
of entrainment and travel distances of particles, and so on sediment flux. The results
resolve the “paradox” of sediment-delivery ratio, and some of the recent discussion over
the validity of erosion rates made from USLE erosion plots; potentially, erosion rates
can also be reconciled with the known life-spans of continents. It is concluded that some
of the accepted estimates of erosion rates are fallacious, and those that are based on
measurement of inter-rill erosion (short runoff plot) are likely to be much larger than
reality (for entire hillsides). That noted, the significance of travel distance increases the
importance of rill and gully erosion, and of the movement of fine particles to which
nutrients are pollutants adhere preferentially. It is clear that far more actual experimental
data must be collected – taken on a range of scales, from small plots to hill-slopes and
catchments – in order to evaluate the predictions of the model, and indeed to provide a
true image of global soil erosion and land degradation.

8. Measures and realities of global soil erosion.

Results from remote sensing measurements show that the total amount of biomass over the
earth’s surface has increased3,4. This may be a result of carbon dioxide fertilisation, where
photosynthesis and hence plant growth is stimulated by elevated levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Globally, the amount of biomass was measured to increase by 3.8% during
the years 1981 – 2003. However, it was also determined that 24% of the global land area
suffered some degree of degradation during the same period. Hence, there are regions
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 115

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 115 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 of “greening”, while elsewhere “browning” has occurred. According to a recent study
made by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) and the Australian National University, in some of the earth’s driest regions (arid
regions of Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa) foliage has increased by
11% during the past three decades, as a consequence of CO2-fertilisation38. Due to different
definitions and terms, as noted earlier, there is a wide variance in the estimates of both the
degree and rate of global land degradation. Most of the policy decisions over land have
been made on the basis of two major sources: the extent of global desertification by Dregne
and Chou39, and that of global land degradation by the International Soil Reference and
Information Centre by Oldeman et al.34, termed Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil
Degradation (GLASOD). The two sets of figures are not strictly comparable, because while
Dregne and Chou considered only dry areas they also included the status of vegetation on
the rangeland. The terminology also differs between the two studies: Dregne and Chou used
the terms38 slight, moderate, severe and very severe to denote the degree of degradation,
while Oldeman et al. used the terms34 light, moderate, strong and extreme, and hence the
degree of correspondence between the levels of designation in the two studies is uncertain.
Oldeman et al. tried to separate natural degradation from that which had been caused by
human activities. Eswaran and Reich40 attempted to determine the vulnerability of land
to degradation and desertification, but only considered arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
regions, according to the definition of UNEP; their estimates of water erosion also include
humid areas. According to GLASOD34, of the different erosion mechanisms, it is water
erosion that is the most important, and afflicts some 1,094 million ha (56%) of the total area
that is impacted upon by human-induced soil degradation. Globally, wind erosion affects
548 million ha (38%) of the terrain that is degraded. Chemical soil deterioration affects
239 million ha (12%) of the total, and physical soil deterioration occurs over 83 million ha
(4%). The most important subtype of displacement of soil material is through the influence
of water or wind. An area of 920 million ha is affected by water erosion (365 million ha
in Asia, and 205 million ha in Africa), and 454 million ha by wind erosion. The principal
chemical deterioration of soils involves the loss of nutrients and this affects 135 million ha
worldwide, of which 68 million is in South America. Salinisation follows next in order of
its impact, and afflicts some 76 million ha globally, of which 53 million ha is in Asia. An
area of 22 million ha is affected by pollution, of which 9 million ha is located in Europe.
The most significant subtype of physical soil deterioration is compaction, and occurs over
an area of 68 million ha, of which 33 million ha is in Europe, and 8 million ha is in Africa.
GLASOD categorises four degrees of soil degradation. “Light” refers to a somewhat
reduced productivity of the terrain, but which is manageable in local farming systems,
applies to 38% of all degraded soils (749 million ha). “Moderate” requires improvements
which are often more than can be achieved by local farmers in developing nations, and
accounts for 46% of the Earth’s degraded soils. Thus 910 million ha of the Earth’s surface
has a greatly reduced productivity: > 340 million ha of these moderately degraded lands
are in Asia and > 190 million ha in Africa. There are 296 million ha globally of “strongly
degraded” soils (124 million ha in Africa, and 108 million ha in Asia), and it is these
that it is not possible to reclaim at the farm level and which may therefore be regarded
as lost land. These terrains can only be recovered through major engineering work and/
or international assistance. Finally, soils that are “extremely degraded” are regarded
as irreclaimable and beyond restoration, amounting to a global total of 9 million ha
(> 5 million ha in Africa).
116 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 116 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 GLASOD is not without its critics41, and indeed its authors were well aware of, and
the first to indicate, its limitations: principally that it was based on the perceptions of
experts, rather than being a direct measure of land degradation. More recently3,4, methods
of remote sensing have been applied to determine the extent of global land degradation:
LADA (Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands). These aim to determine the degree
and trends of land degradation in drylands, degradation hotspots and bright spots (both
actual and potential), using changes in net primary productivity (NPP) as a proxy measure
of land degradation. [Net primary productivity (NPP) is defined as the net flux of carbon
from the atmosphere into green plants per unit time. NPP refers to a rate process, i.e. the
amount of vegetable matter produced (net primary production) per day, week, or year].
The most heavily degraded regions are identified to be Africa: south of the equator (13%
of the global degrading area and 18% of lost global net NPP), south-east Asia (6% of the
degrading area and 14% of lost NPP), south China (5% of the degrading area and 5% of
lost NPP), north-central Australia and the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range
(5% of the degrading area and 4% of lost NPP), the Pampas (3.5% of degrading area
and 3% of lost NPP) and swathes of the high-latitude forest belt in Siberia and North
America, directly affecting the livelihoods of the 1.5 billion people who live there. The
results indicate that 24% of the total global land surface has suffered degradation during
the past quarter century, and may be compared with the 15% of the world’s soil (not land)
being degraded, according to the GLASOD study. Much of the degradation identified by
GLASOD33 does not overlap with the areas newly highlighted by LADA, demonstrating
that land degradation is both cumulative and global. The authors stress that land-use
changes which reduce NDVI [remotely sensed Normalised Difference Vegetative Index
(Figure 6)], e.g. from forest to cropland of lower biological productivity, or an increase

Figure 6 Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from 1 November 2007, to 1 December
2007, during autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. Food, fuel and shelter: vegetation is one of the
most important requirements for human populations around the world. Satellites monitor how “green”
different parts of the planet are and how that greenness changes over time. These observations can help
scientists understand the influence of natural cycles, such as drought and pest outbreaks, on vegetation,
as well as human influences, such as land-clearing and global warming.
Source: NASA. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Globalndvi_tmo_200711_lrg.jpg

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 117

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 117 04/06/2014 13:37:47

 in grazing pressure, may or may not be accompanied by soil erosion, salinity or other
symptoms of land degradation that are of concern to soil scientists. They note further
that while long-term trends in NDVI derivatives are only broad indicators of land
degradation, taken as a proxy, the NDVI/NPP trend is able to yield a benchmark that is
globally consistent and to illuminate regions in which biologically significant changes are
occurring. Thus attention may be directed to where investigation and action at the ground
level is required, i.e. to potential “hot spots” of land degradation and/or erosion.
Montgomery42 has made a global compilation of studies which confirms the long
held contention that the erosion rates from conventionally ploughed soils are 1 – 2 orders
of magnitude greater than the background rates of soil production, of erosion under
native vegetation, and long-term geological erosion. He concludes that on a global basis,
hill-slope soil production and erosion evolve to balance geologic and climate forcing,
whereas agriculture based on conventional ploughing increases the rates of erosion
to unsustainable levels. At a rate close to 1 mm yr – 1 of soil loss (amounting to around
14 t ha – 1 yr – 1), net erosion rates in conventionally ploughed fields can erode a typical
hill-slope profile on a timescale of major civilisations, whereas no‑till methods of farming
cause rates of erosion that are nearer to those of natural creation rates of soil, and hence
might set the cornerstone of a system of sustainable agriculture.

9. Establishing a relationship between land degradation, soil productivity

and crop yields

The productivity of some lands has fallen by 50% as a result of soil erosion and
desertification, and the according reduction in crop yields in Africa lies in the range
2 – 40%, with a mean loss of 8.2% for the continent overall11. The loss of productivity
in South Asia has been reckoned at 36 million tonnes of cereal equivalent with a value
of $5.4 billion as a result of water erosion and $1.8 billion from wind erosion11. It is a
vexed matter to make a definite connection between the extent and processes of soil
erosion and declining crop yields, since the latter may result from various influences.
In some cases, the crop yields do not fall markedly, and may even increase for a time,
despite the soil being eroded, e.g. if a compensatory increase is made in fertiliser inputs.
Crop yields may be impaired43 by an excessive removal of nutrients from the soil, which
are not replenished; the impact of pests and diseases; weed infestations; and the greater
frequency of drought as a consequence of climate change. Other factors – which may
be associated with soil erosion – can also be blamed for a reduction in crop yields, e.g.
a restriction in the possible rooting depth, as when the soil depth becomes limited, and
the roots touch the bedrock or a clay layer; a reduction in the water capacity of the soil;
a decline in SOM (SOC) content; an increasing salinity or sodicity of soil; other changes
in the chemical composition of the soil: e.g. the presence of aluminium or heavy metal
cations, or a reduction in soil pH (acidification) in general. All of the above, in one way
or another, are connected to some type of soil degradation, the most common being soil
erosion by water43. It can be said that practically any adverse environmental change is
likely to lead to soil erosion and a decrease in biomass yield, such is the inextricable
complexity of the underlying components of these phenomena. To invoke a spectrum of
impact, we may at one extreme consider the conversion of dryland savannah to continuous
cropping (the practice of growing the same crop in the same space year after year) of
soya beans (soybeans). As a result of this change, the combined influence of loss of
118 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 118 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 vegetation cover and soil disturbance will aggravate and accelerate soil erosion. Although
the crop (a legume) will contribute some nitrogen to the soil, and some organic matter, a
tipping point will ensue eventually when production is impaired, as a result of a thinning
of the topsoil, colloid loss, and a reduction in the water-retaining capacity of the soil.
However, the input of resources (e.g. fertilisers and irrigation) and technological means
can allow production to be continued unabated. At the other end of this spectrum are the
“badlands” – a result of the mistreatment of semiarid ground, where serious soil erosion
has occurred, with gullies, rills, pipes and other related aspects – which are completely
lacking in vegetation. As far as apportioning blame for the loss of vegetation to soil
erosion is concerned, both extremes are really “chicken and egg” situations: erosion
must result in a reduced soil quality, which impairs plant production and reproduction
– allowing that this might be masked by technology and other inputs – but at the same
time, a loss of vegetative cover provokes soil erosion. It is rare, however, that a landscape
becomes entirely barren, because soil that is “lost” by erosion is transported to other
regions, bearing nutrients, organic matter and water. Such “bestowals” are prevalent
particularly in South Asia, where “sediment harvesting” is possible, e.g. the nullah plugs
in India. Hence, the “cause and effect” paradigm of soil erosion and crop productivity
should be treated with caution, since an adverse effect on one location may transfer an
advantage to somewhere else43.
Some confidence is justified in connecting soil erosion and crop yields, primarily
on the basis of experimental runoff plots, where measured soil losses are related to both
current and future yields, though not exclusively to the underlying mechanisms of soil
erosion. As a general trend, plots of crop yield versus cumulative soil depletion (t ha – 1)
reveal curvilinear, inverse-exponential type relationships, i.e. the yield drops as the soil
gets thinner. Hence, there is an initially sharp loss of productivity, followed by stages in
which the impact is successively less. While alternative behaviour has been identified,
the overall message is that it is comparatively easy to bring back slightly degraded land
into economic use, and that the net returns are always better if the yield has not fallen to
under 50%. In contrast, when land has been severely degraded, to bring it back into useful
(or even economic) production is a tremendously difficult task. Some soils (Figure 7)
are far more resilient than others, e.g. a Nitosol (clay-rich, and common on basic rocks
in highlands) which may be orders of magnitude more resistant to productivity loss
than an extremely sensitive soil, such as a Ferralsol or Acrisol (common in arid, humid
tropical rainforests), especially under good levels of management43. However, it has been
pointed out that the results reported from studies of the dependency of crop productivity
on the degree of soil erosion, are inconsistent in respect to both the magnitude of the
response and indeed the shape of the response curve. Accordingly, an analysis was
undertaken44 to determine whether general patterns, or key features with either a physical
or methodological origin, in terms of the measurement of soil loss, might be identified.
It was concluded that the experimental methodology employed has an overwhelming
influence on the apparent magnitude of the soil loss: i.e. from a comparative-plot method,
an average loss in crop productivity of 4.3% per 10 cm of soil loss was obtained; in
contrast, results based on the transect method gave a 10.9% average; while those from
measurements of desurfacing averaged at 26.6%. Although there was no identifiable
effect of physical variables (water deficit, physical root hindrance, or nutrient deficit)
on the magnitude of the response curve, nor of the particular experimental method on its
shape, it was found that water deficit and physical root hindrance caused convex curves,
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 119

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 119 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 Figure 7 Global soil regions. Source: US Department of Agriculture.

while nutrient deficit gave rise to linear or concave curves. As a general rule, it is only
when the regressor (meaning an imbalance between the crop demand and soil supply)
is nutrient deficit and the experimental method is desurfacing, that the curve is concave.
As an explanation for this, we may note that with a single act of desurfacing (artificially
removing soil), it is the upper topsoil that is removed, and because the concentration
of nutrients tends to increase toward the surface, this has a more pronounced impact
on yields than when subsequent, lower lying soil layers are removed. The timescales
over which natural erosion occurs are sufficiently long that the nutrients are continuously
redistributed throughout the soil, and so comparable quantities of nutrients are removed
layer by layer. It is also the case that where nutrient deficits are obviated by the application
of fertiliser, the response curves tend to be of a convex form. This suggests that further
erosion is likely to cause reductions in crop productivity of increasing severity.
When comparing results for soil loss experiments, the exact experimental
methodology should be taken into account, since it is clear that practically all the variation
in data from otherwise comparable settings can be explained in terms of the different
types of measurement employed, e.g. the results from desurfacing measurements were
as an average six-fold greater than those derived using the comparative plot approach.
It appears reasonable that the more sensible estimates of soil loss are obtained from
comparative plot experiments, while the other methods may lead to gross overstatements
about the adversity of intensive mechanised (industrialised) agriculture on the effect of
soil erosion on crop yields. The aforementioned differences in the shape of the response
curve according to different physical influences, might be accounted for in terms of
the behaviour of the regressor in the soil profile as a nexus with the crop response to
the regressor. For example, because the concentration of nutrients decreases, but in a
nonlinear fashion, as a function of soil depth then successive removal of soil has an
120 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 120 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 attenuating effect on crop yields. In contrast, the availability of water decreases more
or less linearly with soil depth, but how well crops grow is increasingly impaired as the
availability of water is reduced. When roots extend such that they come into contact
with the restricting layer (e.g. bedrock, or clay), growth is hindered, as intuition might
suggest, but since the density of roots tends to increase towards the surface, the effect of
soil loss is more pronounced when shallower (top)soils are present. In the case of gradual,
rather than accelerated erosion, and the soil is well nourished by effective management
practices, the only significant regressors are physical hindrance and water deficit. The
indicated reduction in crop yields of 4% per 10 cm of soil lost implies that those regions
that are subject to moderate erosion rates (around10 t ha – 1 yr – 1 – i.e. of the order of
1 mm depth of soil lost per year) will suffer an average decline in crop yield of 0.4%
each decade. The latter figure might appear marginal, yet for regions in which the soil
erosion is more severe, the reduction in productivity might be worsened by an order of
magnitude or greater. Increasing restriction of root growth is an allying consequence of
compounding loss of soil depth, and accords with a progressive fall in crop yields. It is
those soils with growth restricting layers, such as clayey subsoils, pans or bedrock, to
which particular attention should be paid. In terms of land management, and even in
regions where soil erosion has not, as yet, resulted in particular declines in crop yields, it
is likely that the steady loss of soil will incur increasingly marked losses in the future. As
a warning, the generally convex shape of the crop-yield/erosion response curves indicate
that particular care should be given to those soils that are already eroded, but are currently
still productive. The heavy application of fertiliser is all that maintains the yields of
some highly degraded lands, which are likely to plummet when the soil loss exceeds a
certain degree. No one should be deceived by crop productivity alone, and the underlying
condition of the soil and land must be taken into account, and monitored closely.
In a study of the effect of soil erosion on crop yields in Europe45, it was assumed that
the applications of fertiliser compensate for the nutrient loss caused by soil erosion, and
so this is not a significant factor in affecting crop productivity. Since it has been shown
that rooting space and water availability are the major limiting factors in determining
crop yields in eroding soils, the two elements were combined to form a single variable,
called SWAP (soil water available to plants) which is considered to be the most important
in accounting for the effect of soil erosion on crop yields. SWAP is determined as the
product of soil depth and volumetric water content for that depth, integrated down to the
normal rooting depth for a specific crop, which for wheat grown in Europe, is considered
to be 1.2 m. In principle, SWAP is the quantity of water (mm) held between field capacity
(5 kPa) and the permanent wilting point (1,500 kPa), which for a soil in which cereals
are grown is the sum of two components: water held at low suctions (5 – 200 kPa) and
0 – 1.2 m depth, and that held at higher suctions (200 – 1,500 kPa) and 0 – 0.5 m depth.
The soil erosion data were obtained from the PESERA (Pan European Soil Erosion Risk
Assessment) model. Thus, the authors made a prediction of the likelihood of soil erosion
causing reduced crop yields over the next 100 years, and concluded that it was unlikely
to be a problem in the productive ecosystems of northern Europe. In southern Europe,
due to a combination of severe soil erosion from ancient times and slow soil formation
rates (typical in Mediterranean climates because of low rainfall and rapid loss of SOC),
the soils tend to be stony and shallow, with low wheat yields. The model predicts that,
in contrast with northern Europe, in the southern regions, erosion-induced reductions of
probably a few percent points are likely during the next 100 years45. At a national level,
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 121

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 121 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 the effect is projected to be most severe in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, although it
is not thought there will be any real threat to the agricultural productivity of Europe with
the next 100 years.
The lifetime of a civilisation, however, far exceeds one century and over the millennial
timescale, the effects of such levels of erosion could integrate to become major impacts.
Even if erosion were to prove of no direct threat to European agriculture, its control remains
desirable due to its associated harmful environmental influences. While productivity
might be maintained through larger inputs of artificial fertilisers, to compensate for losses
of nutrients by soil erosion, agricultural sustainability is affected negatively: increased
costs incurred through the manufacture of the fertiliser, with associated carbon emissions,
and the runoff containing fertiliser, pesticide and herbicide may damage terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, many of which are in a sensitive ecological equilibrium. Land whose
productivity has declined may be abandoned, and thus soil erosion may drive changes
in land-use. To explore this prospect in more detail, Lesvos, in the western region of
Greece, was chosen46, since it has undergone accelerated erosion on marginal soils over
the last century, and indeed there have been significant changes in land-use there. In
1886, some 3211 ha were under cereals, of which 53% had been converted to land only
used for extensive grazing (rangeland) by the middle of the 20th century. However, in
neighbouring regions, cereals had returned to some extent in former rangeland, which
indicates local scale changes which rendered some land better and other land worse for
growing cereals, over time. On the basis of a statistical analysis, it can be concluded that
the physical features of the landscape have been critical in determining the abandonment
and later reallocation of land under cereals. Thus, land with high slope gradients, high
erosion rates and shallow soils tended to be removed from cereal production, while
new arable land used for growing cereals tends to be in those areas where the soils are
deep, the erosion rates low, and the slope gradients shallow. The logistic fit suggests an
attribution of abandonment to the direct impact of erosion (25%) + the erosion/soil depth
component (36%) + the direct impact of slope (39%). In regard to the reallocation of land,
the direct influence of slope was much smaller (17%), but the influence of slope via the
erosion/soil depth component was 80%. A possible reason for this is that farmers believed
that the marginal productivity of the land that they abandoned had more to do with the
shallowness of the soils than to steep slopes. It would then follow that soil depth mattered
more when choosing land for reallocation than slope gradient. It is concluded that soil
erosion is a significant driver in land-use change, though due to confounding effects it did
not emerge as a significant independent variable in the analysis, and that the cultivation
of cereals in western Lesvos will probably be abandoned within a few years.
Another study is reported of the response of soil erosion and sediment export to land-
use change in four agricultural regions of Europe47, which over the past decades has been
driven mainly by the introduction of new technologies. Thus, through the introduction of
mechanised machinery, synthetic fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and new cultivars, an
increase in land productivity of 400 – 500% has been achieved. As a result, intensification
has been the case in those regions where these new technologies could be suitably
implemented, while abandonment or de‑intensification occurred (reduction in inputs) in
those areas that were less suitable. From a simulation of the response of erosion to land-
use change over the past 50 years, it was inferred that de‑intensification of land-use in
marginal agricultural areas resulted in a strong reduction in erosion and the transport of
sediments to rivers. This reduction in erosion is frequently enhanced by the conversion
122 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 122 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 of a type of land-use that worsens erosion to one that is less harsh, e.g. the conversion
of arable land to forest on steeper slopes. The innate soil fertility also plays a role, since
it is arable land with sandy and clayey soils (suitable but less erodible) that tends to be
abandoned earlier, while the more long-standing arable land is typically that on silty soils,
which are suitable but erodible. The issue of soil fertility and land area is crucial, if one
result of climate change is that populations may move toward more polar regions. As is
clear from Figure 8, the relative land area decreases, especially toward the south, and in
the direction of both poles the soil tends to be of the poorer kind.

Figure 8 Fertility of the world’s soils.

10. Peak oil, peak gas and peak phosphorus

The greatest adverse impact on our system of industrialised agriculture would be the loss
of a cheap supply of crude oil14 (“peak oil”), and the fuels, pesticides and herbicides that
are derived from it. Although there is a cornucopian counterargument that peak oil can be
disregarded, on the grounds that there are vast quantities of “oil” in the earth, it ignores
or confounds what the term actually means. Specifically, peak oil refers to the rate of
production of crude oil, not the size of the total hydrocarbon body there may lie in the
multifarious reservoirs of global geology. To use an analogy, it is the size of the tap not
the tank that matters. Much of the “oil” that remains will be recovered only with a far
lower energy return than conventional crude oil, and much of what is claimed may not
prove worth recovering at all. The bulk of the world’s tally is present in oil shale, and is
not petroleum but a solid, primordial material called kerogen, which must be “cracked”
(thermally decomposed) by heating it to 500 °C, in order to produce a liquid form that
resembles crude oil2,14. Unsurprisingly, this requires a high input of energy, and which
is comparable to the amount of energy that would be recovered by burning the resulting
“oil”. It has also been proposed that “peak phosphorus” can be expected at some time
during the present century, based on various analyses of how much phosphate rock there
is available and its likely recovery rates15. Since phosphate rock is mined using machinery
powered by oil-refined fuels, the loss of a cheap supply of crude oil would impact on the
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 123

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 123 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 production of this principal source of phosphorus fertilisers, in addition to its restrictive
influence on running farm machinery. It is the occurrence of peak oil, and peak natural
gas (a source of hydrogen, and hence ammonia from which nitrogen fertilisers are made),
with their attendant consequences, that may invalidate many predictions made about how
agriculture might prevail (and all other human activities for that matter), for the next
100 years, or even the next 20 years, since we may have to grow food largely in the
absence of their inputs. In which case, protecting the soil is paramount. Having continued
access to phosphorus is critical, and it has been proposed that more of this element might
be obtained from the soil48. Indeed, the amount of phosphorus in soil is by far in excess
of the amount that is mobile and hence available to plant roots; the vast majority being
present in the form of insoluble compounds2. Moreover, the amount of phosphorus
fertiliser that is applied to crops is probably twice that actually necessary because of
the tendency to ignore the longer-term effect of the residual phosphorus in soil. Due to
an historical lack of application of phosphorus fertiliser in Africa, it has been estimated
that it will be necessary to apply 30 – 50% more of it to the soils there, and probably for
a period of 30 – 50 years, in order to regain pre-depleted levels of the element48. From
another study, it was concluded that phosphorus can be used more efficiently by both
improving the uptake of it (P‑acquisition efficiency) and a greater productivity per unit
of P taken up by plants (P‑use efficiency). The growth of crop-plants that have overall
lower P‑concentrations, and the undertaking of further research into the associated plant
genetics is stressed49.

11. Carbon capture by soil

The loss of soil organic matter (SOM) is a critical factor both in soil erosion and in the
loss of soil productivity, the latter from the loss of soil (depth) per se, and a decline in the
structure, level of nutrients and hence the innate fertility of the soil. Soil erosion depletes
the amount of carbon stored in the soil, and poses a possible source of increased carbon
emissions. As we have seen, current agricultural practices tend to hasten the erosion of
soil. To increase the SOM content of soil provides an effective means for taking carbon
from the atmosphere and storing it, whilst simultaneously the soil structure is made more
stable, thus mitigating the conversion of existing soil organic carbon (SOC) to CO2 which
is then vented to the atmosphere. SOM has many influences on the health of soil, since it
contributes nutrients to assist the growth of plants, and makes the soil more fertile, while
aiding the storage and movement of water within the soil matrix. There are estimated to
be some 2,200 billion tonnes of carbon stored in the top one metre depth of the world’s
soil – practically three times the atmospheric budget of the gas. Through human activities
that decrease the land cover, and changes in how land is used, including deforestation,
urban development and greater tillage, in combination with agricultural and forestry
practices that are unsustainable, soil degradation is accelerated. A report by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)50, states that 24% of global land has fallen
victim to a loss of its health and productivity during the last 25 years, principally as a
result of unsustainable land use, and since the 19th century 60% of the original SOC has
been lost, e.g. by clearing land for agriculture and to build cities. It is thought that > 20%
of forests, peatlands and grasslands may suffer a reduction in their ecosystem services
and biodiversity within the next two decades, with peatlands being especially vulnerable.
Over 2 billion tonnes of CO2 are released from peatlands each year, due to their being
124 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 124 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 drained for other (usually agricultural) purposes, which is equivalent to about 6% of the
anthropogenic burden from burning fossil fuels. The UNEP report proposes that levels of
tillage should be reduced, along with the use of crop rotation, the careful use of animal
manures and restricted amounts of synthetic fertilisers. It is further proposed that there
should be payments made to encourage carbon storage, flood control and water quality
improvement. It is considered that a global climate deal should be made including the trade
of carbon credits for soils to encourage good practice, and regulations for land use change
and forestry are currently in the process of being set down as a part of the deal. UNEP has
identified a “critical need” to universally determine, report and confirm changes in SOC
over time. It is estimated that degrading areas represent a loss of net primary productivity
(NPP) of 9.56 × 108 tonnes of carbon, i.e. about one billion tonnes relative to the mean
NPP over the period 1981 – 20033. This is around one billion tonnes of carbon that has not
been removed from the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about one fifth of the global
carbon emissions for the year 1980. In terms of the carbon floor tax of £16/tonne for
CO2, introduced by the British Government, this amounts to around £59/tonne of carbon,
or £56 billion ($87 billion) in terms of potential costing and revenue. The cost of land
degradation is at least an order of magnitude larger from the point of carbon emissions
from the loss of SOC, and estimates might also be made in regard to the influence of land
degradation on food and water security, drought, flood and sedimentation3. Thus there are
many good reasons to rebuild SOC (SOM) in the soil.

12. Tillage and carbon sequestration

As we have already noted, it is widely held that no‑till (no-tillage) farming leads to
the sequestration of atmospheric carbon in the form of SOM and, in contrast, that soil
disturbance by tillage is responsible for an historic loss of SOC. No‑till is practised on a
mere 6% of the world’s cropland overall: mostly in the USA and Canada, Australia and
South America (Brazil, Argentina and Chile). There was a media report that a survey
had been carried out of no‑till land in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky,
West Virginia and Maryland by Rattan Lal and his colleagues at the Ohio State’s Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development Centre, where he is director of the Carbon
Capture Management and Sequestration Centre. According to Lal51: “Basically, those
soils that are well-drained, are silt/silt-loam in texture, that warm quickly and have some
sloping characteristics prone to erosion, are excellent candidates for no‑till. Clay soils
or other heavy soils that drain poorly, are prone to compaction and are in areas where
the ground stays cooler, may not always encourage carbon storage through no‑till.” Lal
concludes that, at a depth of just 8 inches, in general, no‑till fields will store carbon better
than ploughed fields. However, at depths of 12 inches and more, the situation may be
reversed. It is necessary to “know your soil”, as farmers traditionally do. “Soil” is part of
a complex interactive system, and there is no simple and single strategy for all cases. The
means must be tailored to achieve the optimum outcome on whatever land is being worked.
Baker et al. also emphasise the importance of the depth to which the soil is sampled in
determining its SOC content52. These workers observed that in practically all cases where
conservation tillage was found to sequester carbon in the soil, the soils were only sampled
to a depth of 30 cm (12 inches) or less, despite the fact that crop roots frequently extend
to greater depths. In those relatively few studies in which the soil was sampled to greater
depths than this, no consistent accrual of carbon could be demonstrated conclusively.
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 125

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 125 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 Rather, there were differences in the distribution of SOC, with higher concentrations in
the near surface regions when conservation tillage was used, but greater concentrations in
the deeper soil layers when conventional tillage methods had been used. It is thought that
these contrasting outcomes may be due to tillage inducing differences in the local thermal
and physical conditions that affect root growth and distribution.
At the Rodale Institute, it has been shown53 that regeneratively-managed organic soils
have increased their SOM by around 1% per year to a total of nearly 30%, over the
27 year duration of their study. In comparison, land farmed using industrial high-input
methods has at best accrued no additional carbon, and in some cases the soil carbon
content has declined over the same period. Soils that are richer in carbon tend to support
plants that are more resistant to drought, pests and disease. The sequestration of carbon
in soil is principally due to the presence of mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi are able to
conserve organic matter by forming aggregates of it with clay and other soil minerals. In
such soil-aggregates, the carbon is less vulnerable to degradation than in the form of free
humus. The mycorrhizal fungi produce a highly effective natural glue-like protein, called
glomalin, which stimulates a greater aggregation of soil particles. It is further found that
more soil carbon is accreted using a manure-based system than in a legume-based organic
system.
In the first Rodale trial plots53, carbon was captured into soil at a rate of 875 pounds of
carbon/acre/yr, using a crop-rotation with manure, and about 500 lbs/acre/yr using legume
cover crops. However, in the 1990s, it was shown that by using composted manure combined
with crop rotations, organic systems can yield a carbon sequestration of up to 2,000 lbs/
acre/yr (2,245 kg/hectare/yr). Contrastingly, fields worked with conventional tillage,
and which relied on chemical fertilisers, actually lost 300 lbs/acre/yr of carbon (337 kg/
hectare/yr). 2,000 lbs of carbon is the amount contained in (44/12) × 2,000 = 7,333 lbs of
CO2, and so each acre can remove this quantity of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere,
per year, by trapping it in soil in fields (this amounts to 8,233 kg/ha/yr). While it would
not be easy to do entirely and in practice, we may recall the claim, mentioned earlier,
that if all the 3.5 billion acres of tillable land could be so managed, 40% of all human
carbon emissions could be sequestered in its soil. Roughly that amounts to 2,000 lbs/
acre × 3.5 billion acres / 2,200 lbs/tonne = 3.18 billion tonnes of carbon, which is 40% of the
total of 8 billion tonnes of carbon emitted per year from burning fossil fuels, in agreement
with the above estimate. [In metric units, 3.5 billion acres equals around 1.4 billion
hectares or 14 million square kilometres (km2), and is around one tenth of the Earth’s
land area]. The USA produces roughly one quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, and
has 434 million acres of tillable land. If a 2,000 lb/acre/yr carbon-capture was achieved,
almost 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 would be sequestered within its soil to mitigate nearly
one quarter of the entire US carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Assuming an average
mileage of 15,000 miles per year and 23 miles/per/gallon, this is the emissions-cutting
equivalent of taking one car off the road for every two acres of land, or removing more
than half the number of cars there are on the highways of the USA53.
The notion that converting to organic farming causes the build‑up of SOC has
been explored recently by Gattinger et al. From a statistical analysis of 74 studies of
organic farms (OFs) versus non-organic farms (NOFs), they concluded that organically
farmed soils have consistently higher SOC concentrations and higher carbon stocks and
sequestration rates, than their non-organic counterparts54. However, this interpretation
has been called into question by Leifeld et al., who argue that the data were biased
126 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 126 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 because the organic inputs to the OFs were a factor of four higher than for the NOFs55.
They assert further that the claimed effect on climate change mitigation is unreasonable
because the application of manure to the OFs, simply represents manure that would
otherwise have been used elsewhere and so does not represent a net removal of carbon
from the atmosphere to soil, but a movement of carbon from one site to another. In their
response to these criticisms56, Gattinger et al. emphasised that the observed difference in
external carbon inputs between OFs and NOFs can be attributed to the fact that the field
comparisons were not from fertilisation experiments, but from pairwise farming system
comparisons where the design and the underlying treatments reflected the particular and
prevailing farming practices employed in the region where the studies were conducted. In
respect to the second criticism, Gattinger et al. did in fact state in their original paper54 that
“Further, the estimation of carbon sequestration alone does not equate to climate change
mitigation...”, for which they gave a variety of reasons. Fundamentally, the evidence is
that organic farming practices do enhance SOC stocks.

13. Enhancing, rebuilding and regenerating soil

It is possible to address and mitigate the phenomenon of soil erosion and indeed to
enhance and rebuild soil; nonetheless, appropriate practices are often avoided because
maintaining the status quo leads to immediate benefits (e.g. high crop yields). This is a
shortsighted view, however, because if allowed to continue, the quality of the land will
decline such that crop yields eventually must fall, even to the point where the land is
abandoned. By creating a better soil-structure, along with increasing its SOM content and
by impeding runoff, the soil may be rebuilt. The procedure involves biological, chemical
and physical processes, but it is unlikely that a soil can be entirely restored, along with
its attendant flora and fauna, that was created only over a period of hundreds or even
thousands of years. In northern Thailand, farmers initially responded by adding organic
matter from termite mounds to the clay-poor soils there to increase their productivity, but
over the longer-term this practice could not be maintained. Workers from the International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), in cooperation with Khon Kaen University and
local farmers, experimented with adding the smectite clay, bentonite, to the soil, which
assisted its retention of water and nutrients. By a supplement of 1,256 kg per hectare, an
increase in the average yield of 73% was achieved, and the risk of crop failure on degraded
sandy soils during years of drought was reduced by the addition of bentonite to them.
According to a survey carried out in 2008 among 250 different farmers in northeastern
Thailand, and some 3 years following the initial trials, IWMI were able to determine that
the average yields were 18% higher from those lands that had been treated with bentonite,
and through this practice, some farmers were able to increase their income by growing
vegetables, for which a more fertile soil is needed57.

14. Land management actions for the purpose of mitigating and adapting
to the effects of climate change
Rising global temperatures are expected to have an impact on the future of agriculture,
in terms of heavier and more violent rainfall on the soils in some regions of the world;
in addition, sea level rise will affect low-lying lands particularly. An increasing rate of
soil erosion, with a reduction in soil quality and agricultural productivity might therefore
be anticipated. Since the food requirements of a human species must rise in proportion
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 127

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 127 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 to the expected 30% increase in its population by 2050, the effect of climate change can
only make matters of food security and global sustainability more acute. It has been
proposed that the good management of soil is the single best contribution we can make to
climate change mitigation and adaptation58. Both management practices on the field and
off-site can play a role in this, serving to maximise the conservation of soil and water so
to increase agricultural food production per hectare of land.
It is future generations who will benefit or suffer from the decisions that we make
now regarding the management of soils and crop residues, in terms of soil quality and
water resources. Hence there is the need to ensure that rates of soil erosion, expected
to rise in the wake of climate change, are kept to a minimum. The introduction of
conservation agriculture, growing cover crops, leaving residues to cover the soils, using
crop rotations, and returning crop residue, will improve the quality of soil and curb its
erosion. As noted, large amounts of carbon taken from the atmosphere can be sequestered
by soils in the form of SOM, and this process may assist in our adaptation to climate
change and extreme weather events by maintaining the land productivity. By increasing
SOM and hence the water-retaining capacity of soils, the probability is greater that crops
may endure drier conditions; hence the planting of drought resistant varieties should be
explored, which are able to increase the storage of water in a scenario where the air
temperatures and rates of evapotranspiration are greater. A higher SOM content and an
associated improved soil aggregate structure might also increase the capacity of soils to
drain. Crops grown on more productive soils, with a deeper soil profile, have a larger
root zone (space where roots can grow) and can store more water. A more extensive root
system means that greater amounts of water and nutrients can be accessed by the plants,
rendering them less vulnerable to inhospitable climatic conditions. It is small farmers
who tend to manage low-input systems, and hence they may herald the way to a smaller
scale kind of farming, in fitting with the ideas of localisation (re-localisation) that are part
of the philosophy of the growing Transition Towns movement59. Through localisation and
the establishment of resilient communities, a future is envisaged where populations are
removed from the threat of peak oil and climate change, by being able to provide more of
their essentials, particularly food and materials, at the local level, rather than being at the
behest of external supply lines which may fail. It is sometimes said that “Britain is just
three days from anarchy”, meaning that if there were to be a loss of the national oil/fuel
supply, within three days the supermarket shelves would be empty and people might start
looting from their neighbours to survive. Most likely, the shelves would be empty within
the first day, and mayhem would swiftly ensue.
Precision (target) conservation methods are also key to practices of conservation at
the level of the field or watershed, and thus it should be possible to determine those areas
in the watershed that are best suited to be riparian zones or wetlands, e.g. for carbon
storage in the permanent vegetation of riparian forest. The control of nitrogen compounds
is an important aspect of ameliorating climate change, which may be converted to nitrous
oxide in soil, and released into the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. In addition,
nitrogen is sequestered along with carbon in SOM, and so the increased concentration of
this material serves a further purpose. The implementation of other practices, e.g. growing
cover crops and legumes (which fix N2) in the crop rotation, increases the chances that
more nitrogen will be cycled by soils. Models such as CEAP and GRACEnet can be used
to draw conclusions about conservation practices and aid the adaptation of agriculture to
the expected consequences of climate change58.
128 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 128 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 Research is necessary to find better means for carbon sequestration in soils, for the
management of nitrogen, and improved controlled release fertilisers. The possible crop-
use of manure, along with its employment to generate biogas and to recover N and P
nutrients by biodigestion/fermentation, are important topics for investigation. Overall,
means for the production through agriculture of food, fibres and energy, which impact less
on the environment and require smaller inputs of fuel, other energy, synthetic fertilisers
and water, while simultaneously preserving and rebuilding soil and conserving water, are
sought. The implementation of various underpinning factors to achieve this will involve
political, financial and policy decisions and practices. As the levels of SOM increase in
soils, it may be necessary to apply smaller amounts of nitrogen fertilisers, particularly
where legume crops are grown, and cover crops. Appropriate decisions must be made in
terms of management to reduce the potential for erosion. Off-site conservation practices,
including buffers, riparian zones, and wetlands, may contribute further ecosystem
services, e.g. sequestering carbon and removing nitrogen from the environment. It is
those decisions of management which serve us to mitigate and adapt to climate change
that are crucial to conservation, rendering cropping systems sustainable, ensuring the
quality of soil and of water and establishing food security.

15. Biochar, and its potential contribution to improving soil quality and
carbon capture

Biochar is the specific term applied to charcoal when it is used as a soil-amending agent60.
In 2001, a paper was published61 which refers to a farmer in Acutuba (an ancient settlement
in the Amazonas state of north-western Brazil), who had grown crops on terra preta soils
for 40 years without needing to add any fertiliser. Astonishing as this seems, these “dark
earth” soils possess a remarkable vitality and fertility, and it is speculated that along the
Rio Negra the large populations described by Francisco de Orellana, in the Chronicles of
his 1542 quest to find the mythic city of El Dorado, were sustained by terra preta de indio
– Portuguese for “Indian black earth” (Figure 9). The Amazonian soils are notoriously
poor in quality, despite
the lush forest that grows
on them, and in contrast
the terra preta is a
legacy of the Amazonian
civilisations that lived
there in the past. There has
been much speculation as
to the origins of terra preta
soil, in particular whether
it was deliberately created
to improve the fertility of
the region, or whether it
was an accident of nature
or serendipitous to the
Figure 9 Left, a nutrient-poor oxisol; right, an oxisol transformed way of life among the
into fertile terra preta. Credit: Bruno Glaser. Amazonian tribes. What
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Terra_Preta.jpg seems clear is that the
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 129

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 129 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 essential component of the soil is a type of charcoal, which may have been formed either
by a kind of composting process or by burning biomass which became added to the
soil, either deliberately or by chance. The present consensus of opinion is that the soils
were formed deliberately by local farmers, who understood the causes of its quality. It is
thought that in soil, biochar is able to bind the essential nutrients N, P and K, and impede
dramatically the rate at which they are washed away by the continual rains. Minute pores
are formed in the charcoal over time which can hold more nutrients on its larger surface
area and possibly act as “condominiums” for microorganisms to grow which increases
their density in the soil. There is little hard evidence for the latter hypothesis, although
the abundance of bacteria in soil and also in methane-producing biodigesters is certainly
increased by the presence of biochar62. The idea is to create “terra preta nova”, or artificial
terra preta by deliberately adding charcoal to soil with the aim of recreating the properties
of natural Amazonian terra preta. The whole scheme would necessitate building large-
scale biochar factories, and sacrificing enormous areas of land on which to grow the
precursor biomass. This should, however, be compared with potential complementary
methods for regenerative agriculture which depend far less on added N, P and K, through
growing year-round cover crops, and forest gardens which, once established, are largely
self-sustaining. As already noted, the Rodale Institute concluded that 40% of all human
carbon emissions could be sequestered if their methods were implemented over the
world’s entire acreage of arable land53.
The world emission of carbon dioxide now amounts to an annual 31.6 billion tonnes,
which contains 8.6 billion tonnes of carbon. Therefore, to reduce this by 40% by instead
growing biomass and converting it to biochar, would require the creation of some
3.4 billion tonnes of biochar, year upon year, and is clearly a considerable undertaking.
Some insight into the scale of the current interest and activities in the field of biochar
may be gleaned from inspection of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) website
[http://www.biochar-international.org/] and the work of the UK Biochar Research Centre
at Edinburgh University [http://www.biochar.org.uk/], which has produced the DEFRA
Report “An Assessment of the Benefits and Issues Associated with the Application of
Biochar to Soil.” [http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP0576_9141_
FRP.pdf], in which it is concluded that 10% of Britain’s carbon emissions could be
sequestered in the form of biochar. There is also a series of conferences held under the
auspices of the US Biochar Initiative (USBI), [http://www.2012.biochar.us.com]. The
Amazonian Indians created their terra preta soils over many years, to their fully self-
generating glory, and described the soil as physically “growing”, which may suggest an
accretion process involving fungi and other microbiota. When trees and other forms of
biomass are grown, CO2 is absorbed via photosynthesis. If the biomass is then pyrolysed
(heated to cause chemical decomposition) there remains a solid carbonaceous residue
which can improve the growing properties of some soils if it is integrated into the
top layers. Improving the fertility of soils might also reduce the amount of chemical
fertilisers that need to be applied to soil to obtain adequate crop-yields, and result in
some curbing of our demand upon a declining world resource of phosphate rock15. In
truth, we will have to redesign the way we live, not only to rely far less on personal
transportation, but to recycle nitrogenous and phosphate components from human and
animal waste2,15, in order to grow food, let alone grow an additional crop for biochar.
Ideally those two practices can be integrated, so for example, the proverbial chaff from
wheat might be converted into a stable form of carbon-rich material that persists in
130 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 130 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 soil for thousands of years, or at least hundreds, actually drawing-down carbon from
the atmosphere and cooling the earth. To be effective, the biochar production process
must produce more energy overall than it consumes. When biochar is tilled into soil, it
can improve its fertility, crop yield, fertiliser requirements and water-retention abilities.
Thus, many pressing issues are addressed in a single action, in respect to global warming,
phosphate and water shortages, and the difficulty in growing enough food to feed the
burgeoning world population and alleviating poverty in the developing (non-legacy)
world. Put in such terms, biochar begins to sound little short of a miracle. As noted,
humans are emitting around 8.6 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere annually
from burning fossil fuels, and so that amount must be absorbed in addition to remediating
the levels of CO2 that are already present. In rough numbers, it would be a reasonable
aim to deplete the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, or say a
drop from 400 to 300 ppm, or 100 ppm. The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 × 1015 tonnes
(less than one millionth the total mass of the Earth), and thus we need to remove:
(44 / 30) × (12 / 44) × 100 × 10 – 6 × 5.3 × 1015 = 2.12 × 1011 tonnes, or 212 billion tonnes
– also expressed as gigatonnes (Gt) – of carbon. In this sum, 30 is assumed to be the
average molecular mass of an “air” molecule, 12 is the atomic mass of carbon and 44 the
molecular mass of CO2. Over a 38 year period (so that we have accomplished our task by
2050, the year when all governmental carbon emissions targets are to be met), we thus
need to remove 212 + (38 × 8.6) = 539 Gt of carbon, which works out to 14.2 Gt per year.
If we assume a mean crop-mass of 30 tonnes per hectare per year, of which we
may deduce around 40% is carbon, based on a carbohydrate formula of C6H12O6, this
amounts to 0.4 × 30 = 12 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Hence we would need
14.2 × 109 / 12 ha = 1.18 × 107 km2, i.e. around 12 million km2 of land on which to grow
it. This can be compared with 150 million km2 for the total land mass of the earth, of
which around 15 million km2 is arable and around another 30 million km2 is pasture land.
There are swathes of existing forest (including rainforests) but to clear them would be
extremely foolish, since they are principal carbon-sinks, although growing trees (e.g.
sycamore, etc.) as part of a managed sustainable programme (harvesting them at regular
intervals) might make a substantial contribution to the total carbon-capture volume. Not
all arable crops can be converted to biochar, but manure, etc. might be, from the animals
and humans that eat them. Probably, to achieve the aim of capturing 539 Gt of carbon
over 38 years would require working close to the limits of the planet’s growing capacity,
and a concomitantly vast investment in engineering, along with policy, commercial,
social and all other aspects, in an integrated programme.
Like many other postulated sustainable technologies, biochar too may fail the crucial
“Scale Test” in the final feasibility analysis. The International Biochar Initiative (IBI)
aims to have 1 Gt/yr of carbon being drawn from the atmosphere by 2050. In which case,
let us assume that the target is 40 years away, and that there is currently (on a Gt scale)
about zero biochar being produced currently. Even if we assume a linear growth in the
technology [i.e. the “wedge” obtained by drawing a straight line from 0 to 1 Gt (on the
y‑axis) up to 40 years (on the x‑axis)] only 20 Gt of carbon is accounted for, or a reduction
of about 10 ppm, which is relatively minor, and the attendant biomass production and
processing would, nonetheless, be simply colossal when viewed en masse. That said, if
that level is achieved by, and sustained beyond 2050, 1/10th of all emitted carbon (10%)
captured per year is significant, and the quantity could represent a higher proportion
of total emissions if fossil fuel burning has by then been significantly curbed, either
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 131

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 131 04/06/2014 13:37:48

 deliberately or because we have less of them available. The main benefit of biochar is
likely to be in terms of improving soil quality, if it is employed as a soil-amending agent,
and thereby reduces demand on water and nutrients to grow crops. The latter is likely to
be particularly significant in parts of the world where the soil is poor, e.g. Africa and Asia.
In the UK, soil tends to be very rich (too rich sometimes) but even here, the incorporation
of biochar into the soil would attenuate problems from run-off waters that contain too
much phosphate and nitrate. It would appear that production of biochar and algae on a
local level, as part of a programme of lower-energy living, could offer some benefits.
There is also (for once) the advantage that there is a multitude of people on the planet.
Hence if a community of 2000 people could catch and sequester 200 tonnes of biochar
per year (100 kg/person), 7 billion of us in total could sequester almost 0.7 Gt/yr (close to
the IBI projection of 1 Gt/yr by 2050). However, it is the curbing of energy use that really
counts. Back to the village algae-pond: as a total area, we would need around 3200 km2 of
ponds to fuel Britain (more of which could be turned to other purposes than personalised
transport, levels of which could be curbed through relocalisation), which suggests that
each village pond would need to be: 3200 km2 × 100 ha/km2 / 60 million × 2000 = 10.7 ha
for each 2000-person community. While this is a large number, the goal seems far more
tenable when broken down in this way. The real problem is how to process the algae
either by extraction of its oil (followed by transesterification) or through bulk thermal
gasification. It might be simpler to just grow the algae (and other biomass), dry it and
burn it as a source of thermal energy. All of the above is going to take a great deal of
engineering and hence vast resources of energy, materials, construction work and time. It
has also been proposed that combining biochar with compost, as a soil amendment, might
prove a beneficial means to increase SOC63.

16. Soil and the “hydrological (water) cycle”

The hydrological connection between soil and water, and the profound importance of
keeping soil covered as a means both to mitigate its erosion and to enhance its ability
to retain water, is masterfully illustrated by a simple lecture demonstration http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=og9cQKxlFnE. As the video shows, when water is poured onto
soil contained in a plastic vessel with a spout, it simply runs-off, washing away with it
the surface layers of soil (erosion). When, however, the soil is covered with a layer of
powdered horse manure (basically, digested plants), the runoff is reduced by a half, and
the soil is substantially protected from erosion (less is washed away with the runoff). The
water soaks through the dried manure layer and down into the soil, traversing the body
of it, finally draining into the empty space below (model for groundwater recharge) once
the soil is saturated. Thus we see that uncovered ground is highly vulnerable to erosion
of its surface soil, with rapid runoff (flooding), and groundwater (wells and streams) not
being replenished (potential water shortages). The covered soil is left moist, and thus
capable of nourishing plants and crops, which can be maintained in practice through
management strategies, e.g. planting cover crops around the year, controlling and timing
grazing, avoiding tillage and fires which destroy ground cover and leave the soil bare.
When both the covered and bare soil demonstration set-ups are dried in the sun, it is
apparent that the covered soil remains moist, while the bare soil becomes completely dry.
On actual industrial farms, it is necessary to pump water onto the fields, and to use dams
and irrigation systems: a technology that does not solve the basic problem, but merely
132 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 132 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 treats the symptoms. Moisture also evaporates faster from bare soil, which is another
route to wasting the precious resource of water. In the real world situation, groundwater
begins as precipitation and enters the ground by a process called infiltration64, percolating
thorough the various solid strata below the water table to recharge the saturated zone
and ultimately any lower lying aquifers. Water that has fallen to earth as rain or snow
enters (infiltrates) the subsurface soil and rock in varying quantities depending on the
nature of the ground surface. Some of the water will stay in the shallow soil layer, within
which it may slowly move in both vertical and horizontal dimensions through the soil and
subsurface material. Groundwater may enter a stream/river system if it finds a route into
the stream bank, or it may percolate to greater depths so that aquifers become recharged.
If an aquifer is sufficiently permeable that water may move relatively unrestricted through
the body of it, wells can be sunk over its total area, e.g. to extract water for drinking or
agricultural irrigation.

16.1 Factors affecting infiltration

• Degree of precipitation: the intensity and duration of precipitation is the most
significant factor in determining how much infiltration occurs. Water that enters
the ground frequently seeps into streambeds over an extended period of time,
meaning that a stream can maintain its flow even after a considerable absence of
rainfall and in the absence of direct runoff from recent rain or snow.
• Soil characteristics: clay soils absorb less water than sandy soils and at a lower
rate, meaning more overland runoff into streams.
• Soil saturation: in a common sense fashion, soil already that has already been
saturated from precious rainfall cannot absorb more water and so additional
rainfall instead turns to surface runoff.
• Land cover: forests and cover crops make a considerable impact on levels of
infiltration/ rainfall runoff and soil erosion. As shown in the lecture demonstration
(above) land cover restrains the movement of runoff, increasing the likelihood
of the water soaking into the ground instead. When the land surface is covered
with tarmac to create car parks, roads, and building developments, this truly
impermeable barrier drives all of the precipitation directly into streams. The natural
infiltration behaviour of a landscape may be influenced profoundly by agriculture
and tillage of the land, so that rather than percolating into the soil, it runs off into
streams instead.
• Slope of the land: intuitively, the steeper the slope of an area of land, the faster
water runs off it, so a smaller degree of infiltration occurs than for a comparable
area of flat land.
• Evapotranspiration: some of the water tends to remain close to the land surface.
Plants need this shallow groundwater to grow, and hence it is here that they set
down their roots, meaning that water is moved efficiently back to the atmosphere
by evapotranspiration.

16.2 Subsurface water

An unsaturated zone and a saturated zone are typically formed when water infiltrates into
soil (Figure 10). The upper part of the unsaturated zone is the soil–water zone. Precipitation
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 133

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 133 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 is encouraged into the soil zone, because it is criss-crossed by roots, openings left by
decayed roots, and animal and worm burrows. Water in the soil is used by plants in life
functions and leaf transpiration, but it also can evaporate directly to the atmosphere. In
the unsaturated zone, the voids that is, the spaces between grains of gravel, sand, silt,
clay and cracks within rocks, contain both air and water, and despite the large volume of
water that may be present, it cannot be pumped-out via wells because it is held in place
by strong capillary forces. In the underlying saturated zone, the voids between rock and
soil particles are entirely filled by water. Groundwater moves but only slowly through
the unsaturated zone and the aquifer and so it takes a long time for deep aquifers to be
recharged (Figure 11). The degree of overlying precipitation is also a fundamental factor.
The shallow aquifer that underlies the High Plains of Texas and New Mexico (of which
the Ogallala aquifer is a part), a region of low rainfall, would take centuries to recharge
at its present small rate of refill. However, a shallow aquifer in, for example, the coastal
plain in South Georgia, USA, may be replenished almost immediately, where the rainfall
is substantial.
As we see in the next section, the overpumping of aquifers to provide water beyond
their natural rate of recharge is widespread, and looks set to limit food production in the
Middle East and in other parts of the world. When an aquifer is overpumped, as in these
cases, the water table can be lowered to the extent that wells can “go dry” and become
useless. It is below the water table that the soil is saturated and may yield sufficient water
to be pumped via a well to the surface. [The water table is the surface where the water
pressure head is equal to the atmospheric pressure, and may be visualised simply as
the “surface” of the subsurface materials that are saturated with groundwater in a given
vicinity.] In some locations, the water table is close to the land surface and water can
move through the aquifer very rapidly, rendering it possible to replenish the aquifers by
artificial means (Figure 12). This may be done using rapid-infiltration pits, where water is
spread over the land in pits, furrows, ditches or small dams are made in stream channels
to retain and direct surface runoff, thereby allowing it to infiltrate to the aquifer. The other
common means is by groundwater injection, where recharge wells are built and water is
injected directly into the aquifer.

16.3 The role of forests in preserving soil and water

Forests provide barriers to soil erosion and excessive runoff. Woodlands further protect
water bodies and watercourses by trapping sediments and pollutants from various
up‑slope activities and land use. Forests also contribute to the availability of water, since
they absorb water from direct atmospheric rainfall and from the ground through their
roots. Through evapotranspiration, water is re‑released to the atmosphere and into the
global water cycle. A contribution to the timing of water delivery is further provided since
both the infiltration of soil and its capacity to store water are maintained and enhanced by
the coexistence of the forest. Tropical rainforests are especially important in providing
water for the plants and animals that are sheltered by their thick canopies, so helping
them to survive and protecting overall biodiversity. As we have noted in the section on
deforestation, the loss of forest causes increased rainwater runoff and the erosion of
topsoil, while evapotranspiration from tree foliage, a critical component of the global
water cycle, is lost resulting in increased drought and desertification.
134 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 134 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 Figure 10 Subsurface waters.
Source: USGS.

Figure 11 Replenishment
of aquifers by infiltration.
Source: USGS.

Figure 12 Natural and artificial recharge of groundwater. Source: USGS.

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 135

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 135 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 17. “Peak water”

Water is a resource that will begin to run short within a few decades, as is espoused in
the book65 entitled “Mirage”, written by Cynthia Barnett, which focuses on water-use in
the USA and in Florida particularly. It is well known that to the east of the longitudinal
line along the 100th meridian, rainfall is plentiful, while to the west of it the climate is
relatively arid. Indeed, it was once believed that farmers in the “east” would never have
to worry about watering their crops but, in recent years, demand for water has surged with
calamitous environmental consequences. She refers to a house falling into a “sinkhole”,
which is a collapse in the limestone rock that underlies Florida as a consequence of its
natural dissolution by underground water. These can be opened‑up as a result of human
activities including well-drilling and moreover the excessive pumping of groundwater.
She discusses the complex politics involved in “development”, and the overpopulation
of that southern tip of the Florida peninsular particularly by retirees (“seniors”), thus
requiring an infrastructure, including very green and hence heavily watered lawns and
golf-courses etc., to a degree that surpasses even what can be provided by the greatly
abundant rainfall there. Meeting the shortfall necessitates the extraction of groundwater
on a huge scale with environmental, economic, political and social consequences,
including at least one death as she describes in the chapter “Water Wars”. Indeed, the
history of water supply in the USA is wryly inscribed in the quotation (attributed to Mark
Twain), “whiskey’s for drinkin’ and water’s for fightin’.”
A central theme in the book is that water is a commodity. Often the real costs of water
provision are borne by states or municipalities rather than by corporations, who cash‑in
on a cheap resource for which no regard is consequently imbued, nor for environmental
actions such as damming rivers as mighty as the Colorado for various “aquatic” projects.
Bottled “spring” water is an immensely overpriced designer toy, costing around 10,000
times as much as tap water and often with much the same analytical composition. Indeed,
not all spring-water does, in fact, come from a spring, and is to a large degree, pumped
groundwater.
While the competition over the use of arable land to grow either food or fuel crops is
a well-established and critical factor in making biofuels at scale, there is less awareness
about the water required to irrigate the land on which the crops are to be grown. It is
unequivocal that China is the new industrial nation, in an unparalleled phase of its economic
and social development. This might be expected to continue for as long as the West can
afford to buy its cheap goods, but in the current recession, that duration is debatable.
Underpinning Chinese industrial growth, as for all industrial growth, is energy, and in
recognition of peak oil, emphasis is on biofuels (and all other kinds of energy resources in
China, including coal-to-liquids, CTL conversion) as products need to be transported for
sale. It is aimed that by 2020, 12 million tonnes of biofuels will be produced in China. To
put this into context, this is equivalent to around one fifth of the petroleum-derived fuel
used in the UK annually. The fuel is to be bioethanol, fermented from corn (maize) which
is a relatively water-efficient starch crop. According to one analysis66 in order to irrigate
sufficient corn to produce 12 million tonnes of bioethanol, a quantity of water equivalent
of the annual discharge of the Yellow River would be required. 64% of China’s arable
(crop-growing) land is in the northern part of the country, and is already under pressure
since the existing use of water exceeds its reserves and water-tables are falling67. We have
neither sufficient land nor water to maintain the illusion that we can continue as we are,
136 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 136 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 certainly not in terms of liquid transportation fuel and thus transport itself, merely by
substituting declining oil and natural gas supplies by biofuels. Massive water demand
should be anticipated in consequence of expanding biofuel production in other countries
too. For example, in India and in the western USA, water tables are falling. As already
noted, agriculture in the US Midwest is maintained by draining “fossil water” from the
Ogallala aquifer, which underlies eight US states. Once it is used up, this supply of water
cannot be replenished. It is likely that climate change and the shifting of the temperate
regions to the north may impact further on the American West. In Australia, another major
producer of starch crops, water supplies are also under stress. It has been reckoned19 that
some 5,000 – 6000 km3 of water would be needed to irrigate sufficient crop to supplant
the world’s petroleum based fuel by ethanol generated from corn. We may compare this
number with the entire supply of fresh water available on earth of 13,500 km3 i.e. the
crop would require about half of it. Other potential fuel crops, e.g. wheat, soybeans and
rapeseed, have an even greater demand for water than does corn. This is a clear warning
and additional expression of the limitations of crop-based biofuels.
The quantity of water that we use in our daily lives is deceptive. For example, an
average Briton is said to use 150 litres of water a day, and yet the true total rises nearer
3,400 litres per day68, once the amount of “embedded (embodied) water” (hidden water)
is included, which is the water used to grow and produce various products. Of the water
we use, 65% is for our food, and the quantities of embedded water that are used to produce
commonplace items are staggering. For example, it takes 3,000 litres of water to produce
a beefburger, and in Britain some 10 billion burgers are consumed per year, therefore
necessitating the consumption of 30 trillion litres, or 30 km3 of water. A tomato has
about 13 litres of water embedded in it; an apple has about 70 litres; a pint of beer about
170 litres; a glass of milk about 200 litres. It takes 27,000 litres of water to produce one
bar of chocolate, 100 litres of water are used to make one cup of coffee. It takes 4 litres
of water to make one one-litre plastic bottle of water… that’s before the water is put into
it. To make a cotton T‑shirt needs 2,000 litres of water, 15,000 litres for either a pair of
jeans, or 1 kg of steak. To make a car takes 400,000 litres68. The amount of water used to
produce food and goods imported by developed countries is worsening water shortages
in the developing world, and this raises moral questions, e.g. whether it is appropriate for
developed (legacy) nations to import beans and flowers from water-stressed countries
such as Kenya. If the world’s population increases to 8 billion by 2030, 50% more food
and energy will be needed, and the demand on fresh water will rise by 30%. This not
only reflects the rise in population per se, but that more affluent people eat more food,
particularly meat, and the consumer society is expected to expand within its number.
As a result of overpumping (extracting water faster than the natural rate of rainwater
recharge) to meet food production demands, some nations have reached a state69 that has
been described as “peak water”. To place our demand for water in perspective, although
on average we drink around 4 litres of water daily, in various forms, to produce the food
we eat requires more like 2,000 litres, and it is the latter which is struggling against
available supplies. Almost half the calories we eat are provided by grain, 40% of world
supply being grown on irrigated land. The world’s irrigated land area increased from
around 250 million acres in 1950 to nearly 700 million acres by the year 2000. However,
in the past decade, despite an increasing global population and demand for food, the area
of irrigated land has increased by merely 10%, which may mean that we are approaching
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 137

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 137 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 a maximum in the amount of water that can be provided. The process of irrigation began
with the Sumerians some 6,000 years ago, who garnered river water by means of dams
and reservoirs. Gravity-fed tunnels allowed the water to flow onto fields where crops were
grown. Once it was no longer possible to expand surface irrigation by this means, water
was accessed by drilling boreholes into aquifers, the majority of which were refilled from
rainwater. Some aquifers are not refilled, since they contain water that was laid down
millions of years ago, sometimes termed “fossil water”. Thus a fossil aquifer is something
like an oil well, in that once the water it contains has been withdrawn, it is not replaced,
and can similarly be counted as a finite resource. Two of the most important of the latter
kind, in terms of global agriculture, are the deep aquifer which lies under the North China
Plain, and the Ogallala aquifer which lies under the Great Plains of the USA.
The Ogallala aquifer (Figure 13) flows for 174,000 square miles from South Dakota
to the Texas panhandle65, and it is the main source of water for the collective national
breadbasket, supplying as it does one third of all the groundwater used for irrigation in
the entire USA. Ogallala contains “fossil water”, set in the ground from the melt of the
last ice-age 10,000 years ago, and once it is used‑up there is no more. Access to cheap
electric pumps in the 1950s permitted farmers to draw this legacy upward at increasing
rates with the result that the Ogallala has fallen by 100 feet in parts of New Mexico,
Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. It is inevitable and merely a matter of time that all wells
sunk into this huge aquifer will run dry, with impacts on agriculture overall, including the
vast corn crop grown to produce corn ethanol, as a replacement for those fuels currently
refined from crude oil. The Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology is given
especial mention. The idea is that during wet-periods, when water is plentiful, water is
pumped into gigantic underground aquifers set deep into Florida’s limestone, and which
can be pumped‑up again during dry months. Some 36 million gallons a day are drawn
from Peace River, which starts in Central Florida’s Green Swamp and ends 105 miles
further south in the Charlotte Harbour Estuary. There are almost 1,700 ASR wells in the
USA altogether, most of them in the states of California, Nevada, Texas and Florida,
and all of them particularly short of water. However, caution is urged, as the first well
sunk at Peace River became seriously contaminated with arsenic, present naturally in the
aquifer. Desalination is another technology often invoked as a solution to water shortages
especially in near-coastal regions, even though it is very costly to set up a desalination
plant in the first place, and running one requires considerable amounts of energy. Nor is the
technology guaranteed: e.g. a plant at Tampa Bay built at a cost of $110 million suffered
all kinds of difficulties and finally the high-tech membranes required to separate water
from salt by reverse-osmosis clogged up. Groundwater pumping was actually reduced
by one third in the region, without the need for desalinated water, purely through more
conventional means of reservoir and surface water treatment combined with aggressive
water-conservation measures65. The tapping of aquifers permitted a greater volume of
water to be extracted than was possible from rivers, resulting in an artificial expansion
of agriculture and the amount of food that could be grown. Rather as the situation for
oil and gas, which fuel agriculture on a scale that would be impossible without them,
so water from aquifers has contributed to an artificially maintained food bubble. The
UN prediction70 that the global human population will reach nearly 11 billion by 2100
is tacitly underpinned by the assumption that supplies of oil and natural gas, and indeed
water, will continue to grow to meet the according demand.
138 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 138 04/06/2014 13:37:49

 Figure 13 A browse image of the water-level-change contours data set for the High Plains aquifer, 1980
to 1995. Credit: McGuire, Virginia L. and Sharpe, Jennifer B. Source: United States Geological Survey
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ogallala_changes_in_feet_1980-1995_USGS.gif

The three major grain producing nations, India, China and the USA, are overpumping
their aquifers, along with several other nations with large populations, e.g. Pakistan,
Iran and Mexico. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have each passed their peak in
water production, with peak grain following closely behind. 1973 was the year of the
first “oil shock”, in which as a show of strength to the West over its support of Israel in
the Yom Kippur War, the OPEC countries in the Middle East reduced oil exports by 5%,
causing the price of a barrel of oil to increase by 400%14. However, in the realisation
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 139

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 139 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 that a counter-embargo on grain might be imposed, Saudi Arabia introduced a liberally
subsidised agricultural programme underpinned by water pumped from fossil aquifers,
becoming self-sufficient in wheat. This situation prevailed until 2008 when the Saudis
announced that they would cut their planting of wheat by 12.5%/yr meaning that in 2016
production would cease. It is planned that in 2016, food demand in this kingdom of
30 million people will be met by importing 15 million tonnes of wheat, rice, corn and
barley. Currently in the grip of civil war, Syria is becoming dependent on imported grain,
since its own production has fallen by a third since the peak production year of 2001,
while in Iraq production has plateaued during the past decade. Both Syria and Iraq are
experiencing a diminished flow from the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, as more of the
water is being taken upstream by Turkey. Thus the restrictive effect of aquifer decline
on water supplies is further compounded. The water table in Yemen is falling by around
6 feet each year, meaning that one of the most rapidly growing populations in the world
will be dependent on imported grain in only a few years. Iran has 77 million people
(growing by one million per year), but suffered a 10% fall in home grain production
during 2007 – 2012, in correlation with the fall in water production, and since a quarter
of its grain depended on aquifer pumping, irrigation wells started to go dry. Thus the
Middle East is a singular example where the antagonistic forces of rising populations,
inadequate water supplies and policies and falling grain yields are in interplay. Pakistan
(182 million) and Mexico are suffering severely from water shortages and aquifer decline.
Between them, China, India and the USA produce around half the world’s grain, although
the relative reliance on irrigation as opposed to other water supplies is quite disparate.
China uses irrigation to grow around 80% of its grain, using surface water mostly from
the Yellow and Yangtze river systems, while India irrigates some 60% of its grain crop,
mostly using groundwater. The figure is nearer 20% in the USA, since most of the grain
crop is rain-fed, e.g. in the Midwestern corn belt.
Overpumping has largely depleted the shallow aquifer under the North China Plain,
forcing well-drillers to turn to the region’s deep aquifer, which is not recharged and is
thus a one-off bestowal, currently falling by 10 feet per year. In India, over 21 million
irrigation wells have been drilled from which enormous volumes of underground water
are being extracted. The Indian population of 1.23 billion is growing by 15% annually,
and there are no restrictions on drilling for water. In North Gujarat, the water table is
falling by 20 feet per year. Given that 60% of its grain is produced on irrigated land, it is
India that is the most vulnerable to overpumping, since only a minor share of its irrigation
water comes from rivers69. We are witnessing a duality, where water is in many regions the
principal limiting factor in how much food can be grown, not land area per se. However,
soil erosion is the limiting factor in other regions, such as Mongolia and Lesotho, where
it has caused a reduction in the area of productive land. In northwest China and in the
Sahelian region of Africa, two enormous dust bowls are being formed, far greater in
size that that of the 1930s US Midwest. These conjoined twin forces, of constraining
water supplies and soil erosion, are not only militating against an expansion in global
food production, but may mean that current food levels will prove non-maintainable. The
reliance of modern agriculture upon a cheap and plentiful supply of crude oil to provide
fuel for farm machinery, to transport food from farms and around nations and the world,
to make herbicides and pesticides may prove the weak link, however, should that supply
fail for either economic or geo-technical reasons.
140 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 140 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 18. The relentless soil–water nexus
In a recent UN report71, it was stressed that an increasing demand for land and water,
from both urban and industrial consumers, and by the farming industry to produce
livestock, crops (both for food and other purposes) and also biofuels, is likely to prove
unsustainable. It is developing nations that are likely to fare worst, since typically this
is where land, soil nutrients and water are most under threat. The world’s cropland grew
by only 12% during the period 1961 – 2009, and yet 150% more food was produced on
it, as a result of markedly improved crop yields. However, in many regions, the rates of
growth in agricultural production have been in decline and are now just about half of the
amount at the zenith of the ‘Green Revolution’, which occurred during the Second World
War and on through to the late 1970s. The latter was a consequence of the application of
synthetic fertilisers on the large-scale, irrigation and the selection of particular strains, e.g.
of rice and wheat, that could thus be brought to high yields. The report concludes that of
the Earth’s land surface, one quarter is highly degraded, 8% is “moderately” degraded,
36% is “stable” while 10% is “improving”. 18% of the Earth’s land surface is bare and
2% is covered by bodies of water. Worst affected regions are along the west coast of the
Americas, across the Mediterranean region of southern Europe and North Africa, the Sahel
and the Horn of Africa, and throughout Asia. Loss of soil quality, loss of biodiversity and
the depletion of water resources are all highlighted, hence a quite comprehensive problem
needs to be addressed.
The impact on water resources is worsened by practices of continuous cropping72,
and the amount of soil-water sets a maximum to crop productivity in rain-fed, semi-arid
regions. To cope with limitations in the supply of water requires that particular management
practices are employed during those stages that are crucial determinants of the eventual
yield, e.g. floral and grain development. For example, in western Kansas following a fallow
time of almost one year, even though drought conditions had prevailed, a sustained output
of winter wheat was obtained, in contrast to wheat that had been grown in water-depleted
soil, rather than leaving it fallow. The fallow period is often used to grow oilseed crops
like canola (rapeseed). In a study by workers at Kansas State University, wheat was grown
in sequences of three years, including: a wheat phase; corn or grain sorghum after wheat;
then either a fallow period or a replacement crop of spring canola, soybean or sunflower. It
was found that, relative to water use, continuous cropping resulted in a smaller crop yield
by 18%, reduced the grain productivity by 31%; and reduced the net economic returns
for the wheat crop by 56%. Reductions in these parameters were also observed when an
oilseed crop was grown rather than having a fallow period. Thus it is clear that deficits in
soil–water deficits, when extreme, can have an adverse influence on grain yield formation,
and more severely than on the overall biomass productivity. When such processes as floral
development are impaired, the yield may be reduced by “sink strength” (the number of
developing grains), in addition to “source strength” (canopy productivity). It is thought
that these conclusions are general and should also pertain for crop productivity in those
areas that are normally water-sufficient when they are subject to drought. It is further
predicted that drought conditions will prevail more frequently and more severely, under
the influence of climate change, which will amplify the oscillations of weather patterns.
Research continues to identify crops, including wild varieties of the major species grown,
that can maintain their yields under conditions of low water and higher temperatures, and
that by introducing stress tolerance traits into productive crop cultivars, cropping systems
may remain resilient to future climatic and environmental impacts.
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 141

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 141 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 19. Grain yields starting to plateau?
There is evidence that the world’s grain yields are beginning to plateau73. In 1950, the
average grain yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare, but this had climbed to 3.3 tonnes per
hectare in 2011, while the USA and China were able to quadruple their grain yield over
that same period. From the inherently fertile soils in the US Midwest, 40% of the world’s
corn crop and 35% of its soybean crop are produced. In Iowa, more grain is grown than in
Canada and more soybeans than in China. The land to the west of the Alps, which extends
across France to the English Channel is also very productive, meaning that Western Europe
is able to export a surplus of wheat, in addition to feeding its own dense population. In
the USA, wheat is principally grown in the semiarid Great Plains, whereas in Europe it is
produced on the fields of France, Germany and the UK, which receive ample rainfall. The
European wheat yields are typically in the range 6 – 8 tonnes per hectare, whereas in the
USA 3 tonnes/hectare is good. In China, India, and other tropical/subtropical countries
in Asia, it is common to employ double- or triple-cropping for rice, and so the annual
yield is much greater, despite the yield per harvest being less. The new dwarf wheats
and rices that were introduced in the 1960s were selected genetically to be enhanced
in their growth by both good irrigation and the application of fertilisers. More recently,
farmers have worked on developing hybrid varieties of corn that can tolerate crowding,
to improve yields, and whereas 50 years ago probably 25,000 corn plants were grown
per hectare, when there is sufficient soil-moisture perhaps 70,000 plants per hectare can
be raised. Between them, China, India, and the USA use 58% of the world’s fertilisers,
as the major grain producing nations. China and the USA produce roughly 400 million
tonnes of grain each, and the amount of grain produced per tonne of fertiliser in the USA
is in excess of twice that of China. This is partly a consequence of the USA being the
world’s main producer of soybeans (soya beans), since being a legume, this plant can
fix nitrogen in the soil, which can in turn fertilise crops planted later on, such as corn,
in a rotation of the two crops, thus requiring a smaller application of nitrogen fertiliser.
During the period 1950 – 1990, the world grain yield increased by an average of 2.2% per
year, but during 1990 – 2011, this fell to just 1.3% per year. In Japan and in South Korea,
the rice yield has plateaued, having achieved the limit that can be met according to the
prevailing day length, solar intensity, and ultimately that of photosynthetic efficiency.
Japan and South Korea together produce 12 million tonnes of rice annually, or 3% of
the world rice harvest. Wheat yields in Europe achieved their limit more than a decade
ago, with 8 tonnes per hectare as the maximum in the UK and in Germany. It appears
that the yield of rice in China, the world’s most populous country, may also be about to
plateau73. Since China uses twice the amount of fertiliser than the USA does, probably
the application of it at a greater density will do little to improve yields. Chinese wheat
yields too may be close to the maximum level, meaning that, along with those in Western
Europe, practically 30% of the world’s wheat harvest would be grown in countries that
probably cannot increase their production. Rising global temperatures are likely to place
further limits on agricultural production.

20. Possible remedial actions for land degradation

Soil erosion is most effectively prevented by covering the land with vegetation, a strategy
which helps prevent erosion by both wind and water, in addition to ameliorating runoff
and consequent flooding while allowing natural groundwater, and in some cases aquifers,
142 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 142 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 to recharge, thus securing freshwater supplies. Terracing too has been practiced across the
world since time immemorial, and is an extremely effective way to control erosion. Rows
of trees and shrubs planted along the edges of agricultural fields provide windbreaks,
which serve to protect the fields against the action of winds, and confer a number of
additional positive features, e.g. providing microclimates for crops (by sheltering them
from the drying and other damaging effects of wind), making a habitat for beneficial bird
species, contributing to carbon sequestration, and enhancing the agricultural landscape
from an aesthetic viewpoint. Traditional planting methods, such as mixed-cropping
(rather than monocropping) and crop rotation are also known to reduce erosion rates
appreciably. Some sustainable soil management principles74 are summarised as follows:
• Soil livestock (microbes, earthworms, etc.) cycle nutrients and provide many other
benefits.
• Organic matter is the food for the soil livestock herd (soil food web).
• The soil should be covered to protect it from erosion.
• Tillage accelerates the decomposition of organic matter.
• Excess nitrogen urges the decomposition of organic matter.
• Mouldboard ploughing speeds the decomposition of organic matter, destroys
earthworm habitat, and increases erosion.
• To build soil organic matter, the production or addition of organic matter must
exceed the decomposition of organic matter.
• Soil fertility levels need to be within acceptable ranges before starting a soil
building programme.

The following techniques are proposed in order to build soil:

• To apply manure as a soil amendment. Typical rates for dairy manure would be 10
to 30 tonnes per acre or 4,000 to 11,000 gallons (15,000 to 42,000 litres) of liquid
for corn. This provides organic matter and nutrients, and avoids the loss of SOM.
Crop residues grown from manured soil would further contribute organic matter
to the soil.
• Farm manure and other organic materials should be composted in order to stabilise
their nutrient content.
• Cover crops and green manures: rye, buckwheat, hairy vetch, crimson clover,
subterranean clover, red clover, sweet clover, cowpeas, millet, and forage sorghums
can be grown as cover crops. If they are allowed to grow long enough to produce
sufficient herbage, cover crops can contribute SOM to the soil.
• Reduce tillage: the effects of tillage on the soil may be adverse. Tillage reduces the
natural aggregation of soil and the number of earthworm channels, while porosity
and water infiltration are often decreased. Soils that have been tilled are more
prone to erosion than soils left covered with crop residue.
• Minimise application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers: ideally carbon and nitrogen
sources should be added in combination: animal manure is a good source of both.
If nitrogen fertiliser is used, it is best to apply it along with a heavy crop residue to
the soil, e.g., a rotation of corn, beans, and wheat would thrive if nitrogen fertilisers
were added after the corn residue was rolled down or just lightly tilled in.
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 143

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 143 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 21. Seed-saving and climate change.

In many primitive societies, to save and preserve seeds was considered as an almost sacred
duty. While the practice has lapsed in the past several decades, it may prove necessary
to embrace it once more. This is the message from a recent report by the Ecumenical
Advocacy Alliance, The Gaia Foundation and The African Biodiversity Network, “Seeds
for Life: scaling up agrobiodiversity.” http://www.gaiafoundation.org/sites/default/files/
seedsforlifereport.pdf, in which it is argued that adapting agriculture to cope with climate
change cannot be done without preserving seed diversity. Thus, in the absence of a wide
gene pool of crops, it will not be possible for farmers to spread their risk, or breed new
varieties to adapt to changing weather patterns. The blame for a profound loss of global
diversity is placed on the fact that modern agricultural methods and the marketing of
agribusiness corporations rely on relatively few varieties and crops. The report proposes
that to remedy this situation, farmers must be supported in a revival of their traditional seed
saving practices and the accompanying knowledge, such that this diversity is maintained
and made accessible both for farming today and into the future. Many farmers grow
from just one or two varieties of purchased seed, but the entire crop may fail if the rains
arrive too late or too early, are too heavy or there is no rain. Climate change is expected
to cause irregularities of this kind, and yet it is those seed varieties that were harvested
traditionally and saved, but were then abandoned decades ago, that may serve best in the
future. The Green Revolution has changed the face of farming since the 1960s. Before
then, it was the practice to plant dozens of different crops, from which the seeds were
routinely saved, in a process of developing and adapting new varieties such that the many
and various challenges of soil, pests, disease, nutrition and flavour could be coped with.
Since the Green Revolution came about, there has been an enormous loss both in the
diversity itself and the associated knowledge of how to tend and nurture it, particularly
on farms in North America and Europe. There is currently a rising pressure on farmers to
adopt corporate seed varieties at the expense of their locally adapted versions, in Africa,
Asia and Latin America.

22. Permaculture

As a working and practical definition, permaculture2,75,76 may be described as a low impact

method that uses perennial cultivation methods to produce food crops, working through
principles that are in harmony with nature. This might sound slightly “new age”, but since
much of the energy used in mechanised agriculture is employed to forge processes that
restrain the land from returning to its natural wilderness, if productive agriculture can be
had at a minimum of this energy input, then we have the essence of a significantly more
efficient and “natural” way forward. Certainly in developed nations, food is not grown
locally but must be brought in from surrounding regions, and much of it is imported
globally. The monoculture system that is typical of modern farms drains nutrients from
the land, which is fed with artificial fertilisers, and many of the natural flora and fauna
(soil food web) no longer exist. Such single crops are vulnerable to pests and diseases: for
example, the Irish potato famine was a result of Blight disease which rapidly devastated
the single species of potato which was being grown at the time, and was the staple food
for the poor. Previous generations grew cereal crops but since the potato was more robust
to changes in the weather and produced about four times as much food per hectare, it
144 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 144 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 became the crop of choice. Production of ‘biofuels’ is diverting more land to the growth
of monoculture crops, and along with the eradication of vast swathes of rainforest (e.g. to
grow palm for palm-oil), it is far less ‘green’ as a fossil-fuel alternative than is frequently
claimed. The necessary competition between growing crops to feed humans and animals
or cars has also driven up the price of staple foods like wheat and corn.
The term Permaculture75,76 (derived from permanent agriculture, or culture) was
coined by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in the mid-1970s, to describe an “integrated,
evolving system of perennial or self-perpetuating plant and animal species useful to man.”
According to Holmgren, “A more current definition of permaculture76, is ‘Consciously
designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while
yielding an abundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs.” People
and their buildings, and the ways they organise themselves, are central to permaculture.
Thus the permaculture vision of permanent (sustainable) agriculture has evolved to one
of permanent (sustainable) culture.” Broadly, permaculture may be classified (insofar as
such an holistic entity can be) as a branch of ecological design and ecological engineering
which aims to develop sustainable human settlements and self-maintained agricultural
systems modelled from natural ecosystems. One major change incurred by converting to
permaculture is that cereals cannot be produced at the scale of industrialised agriculture,
and amendments in our diet would be necessary, to consume more vegetables, fruit, nuts,
berries etc., which can be produced effectively by its means.
The core tenets of permaculture are:
• Take care of the earth (“earth care”): Provision for all life systems to continue
and multiply. This is the first principle, because without a healthy earth, humans
cannot flourish.
◦◦ Work with nature.
◦◦ Act to oppose destruction and damage.
◦◦ Consider the choices we make.
◦◦ Aim for minimal environmental impact.
◦◦ Design healthy systems to meet our needs.
• Take care of the people (“people care”): Provision for people to access those
resources necessary for their existence.
◦◦ Look after ourselves and others.
◦◦ Working together.
◦◦ Assist those still without access to food and clean water.
◦◦ Develop environmentally friendly lifestyles.
◦◦ Design sustainable systems.
• Share the surplus (“fair shares”): Healthy natural systems use outputs from each
element to nourish others. Humans can do the same; by taking control of our own
needs, we can set resources aside to further the above principles.
◦◦ Resources are limited and only by curbing our consumption and population
will there be enough for all, now and in the future.
◦◦ Build economic lifeboats.
◦◦ Develop a common unity.
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 145

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 145 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 ◦◦ Modify our way of life now, do not wait: become part of the solution not
part of the problem.
◦◦ Need to become reconnected with the natural world: shift in thinking and
being.
Permaculture is about making an effective design, emphasising patterns of landscape,
function, and species assembly. It asks the questions: Where does this element go? How
can it be placed with other elements for the maximum benefit of the system overall?
The fundamental principle of permaculture is, therefore, to maximise useful connections
between components to achieve their best synergy in the final, and optimal design.
Permaculture does not focus on individual elements, in isolation, but rather on the
relationships created among those elements in the way they are placed together; the
whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, permaculture design aims
to minimise waste, human labour, and inputs of energy and other resources, by building
systems with maximal benefits between design elements to achieve a high level of
holistic integrity and resilience. Permaculture designs are “organic” and evolve over time
according to the interplay of these relationships and elements and can become extremely
complex systems, able to produce a high density of food and materials with minimal
input.

23. Turning problems into solutions: from erosion to accumulation

The Chikukwa project77 in Zimbabwe is an edifying example of how a thoroughly degraded
landscape can be brought back to verdancy using practical permaculture. As noted earlier,
when land has become badly degraded, especially in developing countries, it is often
considered too expensive to recover using engineering/technological approaches and is
accordingly “written off”. In contrast, the Chikukwa project shows that by using low tech
methods, even highly degraded land, with severely eroded soil can be brought back to life
and with very little money, but a good design. This is not a quick-fix strategy, and has taken
over two decades to achieve; however, it is a sustainable landscape, which is the more
important element. The fruition of this project is immediately apparent from the “before
and after” photographs77 such as those shown in Figures 14 and 15. There is a 50 minute
video available which describes the project in its entirety: www.thechikukwaproject.com.
Chikukwa is on the edge of a mountainous region of Eastern Zimbabwe, on the border
with Mozambique. The Chikukwa clan consists of 7000 members who live in six villages
situated along a 15 km stretch of hills and valleys. Indeed, from Figure 15, it would be
easy to think that they have simply continued to live a centuries-old life according to
their traditions. This is not so, and the Chikukwa project began in 1991 when the water
supply that had provided for around 50 households in the village of Chitekete suddenly
dried up. Attempts to dig for water were thwarted by further rains which caused the
stream to become silted up again. At this time, the area was being increasingly deforested
and most of the people were growing cash crops to earn their living. Along with cattle
being let loose to graze, the denuding of the mountainsides of vegetation exacerbated soil
erosion which further compounded the water problem. Those mountainsides, formerly
lush and abundant had dried out, and soil erosion had impacted badly on the fertility of
the land which was steadily becoming desert. The lack of normal groundwater recharge
as a result of deforestation had caused the springs to dry up and when new water sources
were tapped, they became blocked by silt from erosion. Beyond the practical aspects, the
146 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 146 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 Figure 14 The Chikukwa lands in
the early 1990s,bare hillsides and
soil erosion, with consequent poor
nutrition. Credit: Terry Leahy
www.gifteconomy.org.au

Figure 15 This picture shows a

small section of the Chikukwa clan
lands as they are now. The houses
nestled among orchards, the
bunds with vetiver grass in the
cropping fields and the extensive
woodlots are all typical of this design
strategy. Credit: Terry Leahy http://
permaculturenews.org/2013/08/15/
the-chikukwa-permaculture-project-
zimbabwe-the-full-story/

drying up of the springs had a spiritual dimension too, because according to traditional
beliefs, water spirits live in wells and springs, who must be cared for by ensuring the
health of the springs. In permaculture terminology, Chikukwa is well described as an
edge, both in terms of ecology, culture and language, and the edge effect has undoubtedly
yielded a rich and active vibrancy in all respects. Ironically, it is as though an interstitial
industrialised phase has been bypassed, and a direct route to a sustainable community
has been taken instead. The demand on external inputs is but minor, and the community
can be described as being largely self-sufficient. This, however, is a way of life that is
remote in all respects from that in the developed nations, and the majority live in mud
huts and provide for themselves and their families by subsistence farming. Every family
has access to running water, taken from mountain springs; communal land in the valley
is used to grow wheat and maize flower, providing bread and maize meal. Along the
mountainsides are grown fruit trees which everyone can help themselves to.
The Chikukwa project is built on the principles of permaculture and the testament of
its success is that, in contrast to the majority of agriculture projects in Africa which fail
very quickly, it remains in flourish. The “before” photos taken in the early 1990s show
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 147

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 147 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 barren hillsides with a few trees spartanly surviving here and there, with massive erosion
gullies in common sight. Around the springs the banks are bare and trampled by cattle,
while the drying up of the springs made it necessary for villagers to walk 5 km and further
to bring water from a more permanent stream further downhill. There was little feed for
cattle during the dry season and wood for fuel was in short supply, while the harvest had
become poor. During the wet season, there were floods as rainwater poured down the hills,
inundating houses and bringing silt up to the window ledges. In the after” photos, we see
households that are now small farms, surrounded by orchards and vegetable gardens. The
hillsides are ringed by contour bunds (Figure 15) topped by vetiver grass, while abundant
indigenous woodland is hosted by the gullies. Bunds are small barriers to runoff coming
from external catchments, which slow down water sheet flow on the ground surface and
encourage the build‑up of soil moisture and groundwater recharge (infiltration). Bunds
are among the most common techniques used in agriculture to collect surface runoff,
increase water infiltration and prevent soil erosion. Bunds are constructed using either
stones or soil, and by building them along the contour lines of a hill or mountain, the
flow of water is slowed down leading to a greater degree of infiltration and enhanced soil
moisture. Bunds may be used on both even and uneven grounds (with a gentle slope of
up to 5%), by adapting the exact design. Dense woodland, planted on the slopes, provides
firewood and timber. Water is harvested during the wet season by woodlots and swales
which release it steadily, so that the springs run throughout the year. Accordingly, yields of
cereals, vegetables, fruits and animal protein have been increased, making Chikukwa an
exception in the wards of South and Eastern Africa where food shortages are typical. The
Chikukwa project has established a fresh landscape, and its strategic components have
been embraced in each of the region’s six villages, each of which has, as its water source,
a spring about a third of the way down from the hilltops. In order to protect the indigenous
woodland, deliberately planted and sown by the villagers, the gully is fenced off. One or
more poly pipes leads down from the spring to a community water tank which supplies
water to taps in household yards taps in household yards. Woodlots of fast growing trees
are planted on the upper slopes and on some of the lower ridges, to maintain the health
of the springs, and aid the storage and release of ground water, while preventing erosion.
They also provide fuel and timber. While in principle, permaculture2,75,76 can be applied
on all scales, it cannot be adopted as a substitute for industrialised modern monoculture
crop production. It is not possible to separate our growing of food from other aspects
of community, and so if we adopt the design principles of permaculture for our food
production, we must adapt all other lifestyle elements as a necessary and simultaneous
part of the process.

24. How many people can the Earth support?

It is claimed78 that “a population density of 6 – 10 people per acre might be supported

through permaculture, and is greater than our current cereal-based food economy can
sustain”. Since our ability to grow cereals, in the quantity we do, depends on industrialised
agriculture, with its considerable inputs of oil- and gas-based fuels, fertilisers and
pesticides, the practice is not sustainable and so the comparison is not strictly valid. We
are then left with the question of how many people might be supported by the earth, if
permaculture methods were widely introduced. If we assume the lower limit, this means
that 15 people can be fed per hectare. Thus, to feed the human population of 7 billion, we
148 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 148 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 would need 467 million hectares of land, or 4.7 million km2. Since we have 150 million
km2 of dry land, and around 14 million km2 of arable land, it would appear there is no
problem in sustaining the present global population, and that supporting even 9 billion by
2050, or 12 billion by 2100, is feasible. Toby Hemenway, regarded as one of the gurus
of permaculture, is less optimistic, and believes that the maximum carrying capacity of
the Earth is nearer 2 billion79. [This is also the number arrived at by Pimentel et al.80, on
the basis of the limited resources of energy, water and food available to us, and it seems
most likely that it is failing supplies of these key inputs, particularly freshwater, that will
reduce and finally limit our population. One is reminded of the “four horsemen of the
apocalypse”: pestilence, war, famine and death, each rider being perceivable in a guise
of resource shortages. Since the consequence of consumption is pollution, this too must
prove a determinant to the numbers of humans that can live sustainably on “Spaceship
Earth”, as the visionary Buckminster Fuller termed81 our existence].
Other permaculturists are far more sanguine than Hemenway about what might be
achieved, in terms of sustaining the global population, and point out that predictions
of food shortages are based on limits of the resources that are necessary for modern
agriculture, whereas permaculture is based on the interacting and holistic mechanisms of
nature, where nothing is wasted and everything is recycled, all elements being returned
to the ecosystem, by death, and from which new life can flourish. David Blume claims to
have fed up to 450 people on two acres (0.8 ha) of land for 9 years, by the end of which
the soil contained 22% SOM, with a CEC of > 25 (a measure of its humus content).
This amounts to ca 18 m2/person, which might be understood to imply that the current
world population of 7 billion could be fed on just 120,000 km2 of land. The key to this
success is polyculture, which benefits from the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and less
solar saturation82. Blume has described this technique as “restorative agriculture”, and
he believes that there is, correspondingly, no immediate limit to the number that can
be fed on Planet Earth, and that ethanol fuel, produced on the local scale could meet all
our energy needs – including electricity production – and obviate the need for crude oil.
Hemenway has spoken83 on the subject of: “How permaculture can save humanity and
the earth, but not civilisation,” which may initially sound like an oxymoron. It is in fact
a rather more subtle proposition, to the effect that while permaculture cannot sustain the
present global economy and global civilisation with a population of 7 billion people, it
might support a lesser number of up to 2 billion, but, of necessity, its practices mean
living in small communities. Thus, the civilisation that permaculture could sustain is a
globe of villages, not the global village. The principles of permaculture are central to the
growing community-based Transition Town movement59.

25. Conclusions.

As we have seen, the subject of land degradation is complex. A significant part of

this complexity lies in establishing a clear link between the degree of degradation –
principally from soil erosion – and declining crop yields, since the latter can be masked
by the application of fertilisers to improve soil productivity, even in cases where the soil
has been significantly degraded. Irrigation is a key factor too. Most determinations of
the extent of land degradation (e.g. GLASOD) have been made on the basis of “expert
judgement” and perceptions, as opposed to direct measurements of this multifactorial
phenomenon. More recently, satellite-based remote sensing measurements have been
www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 149

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 149 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 used to provide some overview of the global situation. Globally, the amount of biomass
was measured to increase by 3.8% during the years 1981 – 2003, which is thought due
to the fertilisation effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, 24% of the
global land area suffered some degree of degradation over the same period. Hence, there
are regions of “greening” while elsewhere, “browning” has occurred. It appears that while
long-term trends in NDVI derivatives are only broad indicators of land degradation, taken
as a proxy, the NDVI/NPP trend is able to yield a benchmark that is globally consistent
and to illuminate regions in which biologically significant changes are occurring. Thus
attention may be directed to where investigation and action at the ground level is required,
i.e. to potential “hot spots” of land degradation and/or erosion. The term “sustainable
agriculture” has been described as an oxymoron, on the basis that by its very nature,
agriculture is ultimately unsustainable84. It is not simply the degradation of the soil, or the
loss of biodiversity that are at issue, but that the external energy inputs amount to perhaps
10 times that actually consumed in the food itself. In the absence of a cheap and plentiful
supply of crude oil (and the fuels, pesticides and herbicides that are derived from it), cheap
natural gas (from which nitrogen fertilisers are made), and mined phosphate rock (used
to make phosphorus fertilisers and mined using machinery powered by fuels refined from
crude oil), the present industrialised global agricultural mechanism would be impossible,
and it is only through the latter that the global human population has risen to its present
number. Projections about future population numbers tacitly assume that these inputs will
prevail into the future, when all evidence is that the age of cheap oil and gas is drawing
to a close. It is very likely that the present system of large-scale industrialised agriculture
will not survive, and humans will return to growing food on smaller areas, including the
adoption of urban permaculture, as happened in Cuba when its bestowals of cheap fuels,
and other agricultural inputs (pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers) from the Former Soviet
Union were curtailed by the collapse of Communism2.While, in principle, a permaculture
approach can be applied on all scales (from the small plot to the full field), it cannot be
adopted as a substitute for industrialised modern monoculture crop production since it is
implicitly holistic. Accordingly it is not possible to separate our growing of food from
other aspects of community, and so to adopt the design principles of permaculture for
our food production, we must adapt all other lifestyle elements as an underpinning and
simultaneous part of the process.
As fuel prices rise, and actual shortages of fuel ensue, long-distance mass transportation
of food will no longer be economic or feasible, further driving food production at the
local level, as a means to achieve food security and community resilience. The loss of
soil organic matter (SOM) is a critical factor both in soil erosion and in the loss of soil
productivity, the latter from the loss of soil (depth) per se, and a decline in the structure,
level of nutrients and hence the innate fertility of the soil. Thus, by increasing the SOC,
the structure of the soil is improved, which increases its holding capacity for water, and
allows better drainage, hence there is more groundwater and less flooding, while droughts
are mitigated. The agricultural productivity of the soil is heightened, enlarging crop yields,
and soil erosion is attenuated, especially if the ground is also covered by mulching or
with cover crops. Degraded lands may be restored in their production through increasing
their SOC content, giving better soil, and water quality. The improved soil structure
leads to a better retention of water and nutrients, and smaller inputs onto the farm of
oil-based fuels, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, while biodiversity is enhanced. The
150 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 150 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 term “biodiversity” does not only refer to what is visible above the ground, but also
to the roots systems of plants, and their accompanying fungal rhizosphere which is an
essential part of the soil food web. The importance of rebuilding the soil food web2 – the
ecosystem of microbes, and visible creatures that dwell in soil – is central to maintaining
food production in perpetuity, i.e. achieving a system that is truly sustainable.
The Chikukwa project shows that by using low tech methods, even highly degraded
land, with severely eroded soil can be brought back to life, and with very little money, but
a good design. This is not a quick-fix strategy, and has taken over two decades to come
to achieve; however, it is a sustainable landscape, which is the more important element.
In part, it may appear that the case for catastrophic land degradation through soil erosion,
and an according threat to the survival of humanity has been overstated, although the
rising human population will increase demand inexorably for what the soil can provide.
It must be stressed, however, that the productivity of much agricultural land is maintained
only through those inputs, of oil and natural gas (from which fuels, pesticides, herbicides
and fertilisers are sourced), and irrigation water, which are vital organs of current
industrial food production. Therefore, on grounds of stabilising the climate, preserving
the environment, and ensuring the robustness of the global food supply, maintaining
and building good soil, especially improving its SOM content and hence its structure, is
highly desirable. In particular, those regions of the world that are significantly degraded
are unlikely to support an appreciable population increase (e.g. Africa, whose population
is predicted70 to grow from its present 1.1 billion to 4.2 billion by 2100) in which case a
die-off or mass migration might be expected, if population limitations are not included in
future plans to achieve sustainability and food security. The latter figure should be placed
in the context of a total70 world population of almost 11 billion by 2100, nearly 40% of
which would therefore be African. It is more likely, however, that a constraint on the
size of future populations will be imposed by an insufficiency of oil, gas and therefore
food, to sustain the growing multitude. Indeed, rather than the number of humans on
Earth increasing throughout the present century and probably beyond, there are various
analyses which indicate instead that the population will peak at some stage before
2100. It is probable that industrial populations will soon peak85, with the developing
nations following suit around 40 years later as they try to emulate their current industrial
counterparts. The population of Europe has been estimated85 to peak in 2025, with the
world population peaking at around 8.5 billion some time near the year 2050. However, a
critical loss in the global oil (and hence, food) supply could precipitate a more immediate
and rapid decline in human numbers.

References
1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37957/37957-h/37957-h.htm
2. Rhodes, C.J. (2012) Sci. Prog., 95, 345 – 446.
3. Bai, Z.G. et al. (2008) Soil Use Manage., 24, 223 – 234.
4. Bai, Z.G. et al. (2008) Global assessment of land degradation and improvement 1. Identification by remote sens-
ing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC, Wageningen.
5. Adams, C.R. and Eswaran, H. (2000) In: Gawande, S.P. (ed.), Advances in land resources management for the
20th century, pp. 35 – 50. New Delhi: Soil Conservation Society of India.
6. UNEP (2008) Africa: atlas of our changing environment. Division of early warning and assessment (DEWA)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
7. Snel, M.and Bot, A. (2003) Draft paper: suggested indicators for land degradation assessment of drylands. FAO,
Rome.

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 151

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 151 04/06/2014 13:37:50

 8. Agro-ecological zoning and GIS application in Asia with special emphasis on land degradation assessment in
drylands (LADA). Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand10 – 14 November 2003. FAO, in-
ternet website: ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/misc38e.pdf, accessed July 1, 2008.
9. Dobie, P. (2001) Poverty and the drylands. United Nations Development Programme, Dryland Development
Centre. Nairobi, Kenya.
10. Kapalanga, T.S. A review of land degradation assessment methods. http://www.unulrt.is/static/fellows/docu-
ment/taimi-1-.pdf
11. Eswaran, H., Lal, R. and Reich, P.F. Land degradation: an overview. http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/
land-degradation-overview.html
12. http://www.fao.org/nr/land/degradation/en/
13. Stocking, M. (2001) A handbook for the field assessment of land degradation. Earthscan Publications, Oxford.
14. Rhodes, C.J. (2008) Sci Prog., 91, 317 – 375.
15. Rhodes, C.J. (2013) Sci Prog., 96(4), 109 – 152.
16. Blanco, H. and Lal. R. (2010) Tillage erosion. principles of soil conservation and management. Springer, New
York.
17. Committee on 21st Century Systems Agriculture. Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century.
National Academies Press; 2010.
18. Nîr D.M. (1983) A geomorphological agent: an introduction to anthropic geomorphology, pp. 121 – 122. Spring-
er, New York.
19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1995). Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Techni-
cal Information relevant to interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, p.5.
20. Pruski, F.F. and Nearing, M.A. (2002) J. Soil Water Conserv., 57, 7 – 16.
21. Lane, L.J., Shirley, E.D. and Singh, V.P. (1988) In: Anderson, M.G. (ed.), Modeling geomorphological systems,
p.287 – 308. John Wiley, New York.
22. Kinnell, P.I.A. (2010) J. Hydrol., 385, 384 – 397.
23. Nearing, M.A. (2000) Science, 290, 1300 – 1301.
24. Wischmeier, W.H., Johnson, C.B. and Cross, B.V. (1971) J. Soil Water Conserv., 26, 189 – 193.
25. Pimentel, D. et al. (1995) Science, 267, 1117 – 1123.
26. Boardman, J.J. (1998) Soil and Water Conserv., 53, 46 – 50.
27. Arden-Clarke, C. and Evans, R. (1993) In: Pimentel, D. (ed.) World soil erosion and conservation, p.192 – 215.
Cambridge University Press.
28. Evans, R. (1995) Prog. Phys. Geog., 19(1), 115 – 129.
29. Ryszkowski, L. (1993) In: Pimentel, D. (ed.), World soil erosion and conservation, p. 217 – 232. Cambridge
University Press.
30. Crosson, P. (1995) Science, 269, 461 – 463.
31. Lal, R. (1990) In: Lal, R. and Stewart, S.A. (eds), Soil degradation, p. 132. Springer-Verlag, New York.
32. Brown, L. (1984) In: Norton, W.W. (ed.), State of the world. Worldwatch Institute, New York.
33. Pimentel, D. et al. (1995) Science, 269, 264 – 465.
34. Oldeman, L., Hakkeing, R. and Sombroeck, W. (1990) World map of the status of human-induced soil degrada-
tion: an explanatory note. International soil and reference information center, Wageningen. Nairobi Kenya: The
Netherlands, and United Nations programme.
35. Trimble, S.W. and Crosson, P. (2000) Science, 289, 248 – 250.
36. Cerdan, O. et al. (2012) Geomorphology, 122, 167 – 177.
37. Parsons, A.J. et al. (2004) Earth Surf. Process, 29, 1293 – 1302.
38. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/arid-regions-of-the-world-are-11-greener-thanks-to-co2/
39. Dregne, H.E. and Chou, N.T. (1994) In: Dregne, H.E. (ed.), Degradation and restoration of arid lands. Texas
Technical University, Lubbock.
40. Eswaran, H. and Reich, P.F. (1998) Proc. 16thInt. Cong. Soil Sci., Montpellier: France.
41. Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. and Dent, D.L. (2009) J. Environ. Manage., 90, 274 – 283.
42. Montgomery, D.R. (2007) PNAS, 33, 13268 – 13272.
43. Stocking, M. (2003) Erosion and crop yield. Encyclopedia of Soil Science, p. 1 – 3. Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York.
44. Bakker, M.M., Govers, G. and Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2004) Catena, 7, 55 – 76.
45. Bakker, M.M. et al. (2007) Ecosystems, 10,1209 – 1219.
46. Bakker, M.M. et al. (2005). Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 1005, 467 – 481.
47. Bakker, M.M. et al. (2008) Geomorphology, 98, 213 – 226.
48. Sattari, S.Z. et al. (2012) PNAS, 109, 6348 – 6353.
49. Veneklaas, E.J. et al. (2012) New Phytol., 195, 306 – 320.

152 Christopher J. Rhodes

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 152 04/06/2014 13:37:51

 50. http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_2.pdf
51. http://farmersmarketonline.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/growth-spurts-no-till-has-its-limits.html
52. Baker, J.M. (2007) Agr. Ecosyst. Envir., 118, 1 – 5.
53. http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper-07_30_08.pdf
54. Gattinger, A. et al. (2012) PNAS, 109(44), 18226 – 18231.
55. Leifeld, J. et al. (2013) Organic farming gives no climate change benefit through soil carbon sequestration.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/20/1220724110.full.pdf
56. Gattinger, A. et al. (2013) Reply to Leifeld et al.: Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming is not
equated with climate change mitigation. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/20/1221886110.full.pdf
57. http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/Success_Stories/PDF/2010/Issue%202%20-%20Improving_soils_
and_boosting_yields_in_Thailand.pdf
58. Lal, R. (2011) J. Soil Water Conserv., 66, 276 – 285.
59. Hopkins, R. (2008) The transition handbook – from oil dependency to local resilience. Green Books Ltd, Totnes.
60. Ekebafe, M.O., Ekebafe, L.O. and Maliki, M. (2013) Sci. Prog., 96, 85 – 94.
61. Petersen, J.B., Neves, E. and Heckenberger, M.J. (2001) In: McEwan, C. et al. (eds) Unknown Amazon: Culture
and Nature in Ancient Brazil, p. 86 – 105. British Museum Press, London.
62. Lehmann, J. et al. (2011) Soil Biol. Biochem., 43, 1812 – 1836.
63. Fischer, D. and Glaser, B. (2012) In: Sunil, K. and Barti, A. (eds). Management of Organic Waste, Chap. 10, p.
167 – 198. Open Access: Intech. http://cdn.intechweb.org/pdfs/27163.pdf
64. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleinfiltration.html
65. Yang, H. et al. (2004) Energy Policy, 37, 1876 – 1885.
66. Khan, S.M.A. and Hanjra, J.M. (2009) Agr. Water Manage., 96, 349 – 360.
67. Reijnders, L., http://scitizen.com/stories/future-energies/2009/04/Biofuels-and-water/
68. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Zygmunt_2007.pdf
69. http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/as-countries-over-pump-aquifers-falling-water-tables-
mean-falling-harvests.html
70. http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Press_Release.pdf
71. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i1688e/i1688e.pdf
72. Aiken, R.M. et al. (2013) Agron. J., 105, 199 – 207.
73. http://permaculturenews.org/2013/08/07/grain-yields-starting-to-plateau/
74. http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010117attrasoilmanual/010117attra.html#management
75. Mollison, B. and Jeeves, A. (1988) Permaculture: a designers’ manual. Tasmania: Tagari Publications.
76. Holmgren, D. (2011) Permaculture: principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Permanent Publications,
East Meon.
77. www.gifteconomy.org.au
78. http://charleseisenstein.net/permaculture-and-the-myth-of-scarcity/
79. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=permaculture-forever-sustainability
80. http://populationmatters.org/documents/population_numbers.pdf
81. Buckminster Fuller, R. (2008) Operating manual for spaceship earth. Lars Muller, Zurich.
82. www.permaculture.com/node/1344
83. www.permaculture.com/node/1344
84. http://www.patternliteracy.com/203-is-sustainable-agriculture-an-oxymoron
85. http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-97/issue-5/in-this-issue/general-interest/world-oil-supply-what-goes-
up-must-come-down-but-when-will-it-peak.html

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Soil erosion, climate change and global food security 153

SPR1300097_FINAL.indd 153 04/06/2014 13:37:51