Model Results
Projected Outcomes for Food, Energy, Water, and Ecosystems in 2050
We used mathematical models to project what each scenario might mean for food, bioenergy, water, and ecosystems by 2050. Our results show tradeoffs and opportunities between these basic needs.
Compare Outcomes Across the Scenarios
Toggle between the two different climate projections – wet & warm and dry & hot – below to see the range of possible outcomes for food production, bioenergy production, water quantity and quality, and ecosystem quality across the four scenarios, based on both the climate conditions and the specific changes that occur in each scenario. The climate projections shown here represent the two ends of the range of six total projections we used in our models.
To see the model results for individual scenarios, click through the blue menu banner above.
Long description: This bar chart compares the percentage change in food energy production relative to a baseline across four land-use scenarios: Cropland Conservation, Perennial Agriculture, Ecosystem Restoration, and Local Targeting.
The vertical axis ranges from -100% to +100% and includes a bold zero line. Positive values indicate increased food production while negative percent represents a decline in food production.
Under Wet and Warm: Cropland Conservation = 11.3%, Perennial Agriculture = 36.6%, Ecosystem Restoration = 14.6%, Local Targeting = 2.1%.
Under Dry and Hot: Cropland Conservation = -26%, Perennial Agriculture = 13.7%, Ecosystem Restoration = -27.7%, Local Targeting = -31.2%.
Scenario notes: Under Wet and Warm, improvements tend to be positive with Perennial Agriculture often highest. Under Dry and Hot, some scenarios show reductions, notably Cropland Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration.
Food Energy
Food calories from crops and animal products
Total annual production of food calories across the Basin, including food for direct human consumption and the indirect contribution to human calories from animal feed. Considers dietary changes that occur in each scenario and indicates the Basin’s potential contribution to regional and global food supply.
Long description: This bar chart shows the percentage change in biofuel energy production relative to a baseline across four land-use scenarios: Cropland Conservation, America’s Pasture, Restoration Agriculture, and Hotspots for Transformation.
The vertical axis ranges from -100% to +100% and includes a bold zero line. Positive percent represents an improvement as increased biofuel production, while negative percent represents a decline in biofuel production.
Under Wet and Warm: Cropland Conservation = 48.3%, America’s Pasture = -93.9%, Restoration Agriculture = -94.3%, Hotspots for Transformation = -28.7%.
Under Dry and Hot: Cropland Conservation = 13.3%, America’s Pasture = -95.2%, Restoration Agriculture = -95.6%, Hotspots for Transformation = -45.5%.
Scenario notes: Under Wet and Warm, the Cropland Conservation scenario is the only scenario to show increased biofuel energy production, while the others have less than the baseline, with America’s Pasture and Restoration Agriculture having the biggest declines. Under Dry and Hot, the Cropland Conservation scenario maintains a slight increase in biofuel production, and the decline in other scenarios is more pronounced.
Biofuel Energy
Production of biofuel energy
Total annual production of biofuel energy, in Petajoules, from corn and soybean in the Basin, after accounting for energy losses.
Long description: This grouped bar chart compares changes in drought frequency (green bars) and flood frequency (orange bars) across four land-use scenarios: Cropland Conservation, America’s Pasture, Restoration Agriculture, and Hotspots for Transformation.
The vertical axis ranges from -100% to +100% and includes a bold zero line. Positive percent represents improvement (less frequency) while negative percent represents worsening (more frequency).
Under Wet and Warm: drought frequency = -42.7% for all scenarios; flood frequency = 50% for all scenarios.
Under Dry and Hot: drought frequency = 22.2% for all scenarios; flood frequency = -18.7% for all scenarios.
Scenario notes: Under Wet and Warm, drought frequency decreases and flood frequency increases across all four scenarios. Under Dry and Hot, drought frequency increases and flood frequency decreases across all four scenarios.
Water Quantity
Average frequency of drought or flooding
Uses outflow metrics from Grafton, IL to indicate possible flood or drought risk. Flood frequency is the change in total time the Mississippi River is at “moderate” or worse flood stage. Drought risk is the change in total time the Mississippi River is below the 10th percentile of historical flow. Note: Grafton represents the best available data but may not be representative of flood or drought frequency across the Basin.
Long description: This grouped bar chart compares changes in drought frequency (green bars) and flood frequency (orange bars) across four land-use scenarios: Cropland Conservation, America’s Pasture, Restoration Agriculture, and Hotspots for Transformation.
The vertical axis ranges from -100% to +100% and includes a bold zero line. Positive percent represents improvement (decreases from the baseline) while negative percent represents worsening (increases from the baseline).
Under Wet and Warm:
- Nitrate Concentration: Cropland Conservation = -13.6%, America’s Pasture = 3.1%, Restoration Agriculture = 1.9%, Hotspots for Transformation = 4.6%.
- Nitrogen Leached: Cropland Conservation = -2.5%, America’s Pasture = 19.2% Restoration Agriculture = 17.2%, Hotspots for Transformation = 19%.
- Phosphorus Runoff: Cropland Conservation = 28%, America’s Pasture = 3.8%, Restoration Agriculture = -8.2%, Hotspots for Transformation = 17.4%.
- Sediment Loss: Cropland Conservation = 7.7%, America’s Pasture = -24.6%, Restoration Agriculture = -32.2%, Local Targeting = -14.6%.
Under Dry and Hot:
- Nitrate Concentration: Cropland Conservation = -39%, America’s Pasture = -10.8%, Restoration Agriculture = -13.5%, Hotspots for Transformation = -17.3%.
- Nitrogen Leached: Cropland Conservation = -36.2%, America’s Pasture = -4.5%, Restoration Agriculture = -8%, Hotspots for Transformation = -12.9%.
- Phosphorus Runoff: -Cropland Conservation = 30%, America’s Pasture = 5.8%, Restoration Agriculture = -8.9%, Hotspots for Transformation = 17.7%.
- Sediment Loss: Cropland Conservation = 4.8%, America’s Pasture = -26.6%, Restoration Agriculture = -34.2%, Hotspots for Transformation = -17.9%.
Scenario notes: Under Wet and Warm, only Cropland Conservation shows improvement in nitrate concentration and leaching (declined amounts). Phosphorus runoff improves (declines) in only Restoration Agriculture. Sediment loss improves (declines) in all scenarios except Cropland Conservation, with the biggest decline in Restoration Agriculture. Under Dry and Hot, all scenarios show improvement (declines) in nitrate concentration and leaching, with the most improvement in Cropland Conservation. Only Restoration Agriculture shows improvement (decline) in phosphorus runoff, and all scenarios except Cropland Conservation show improvement (decline) in sediment loss, with the biggest decline in Restoration Agriculture.
Water Quality
Nutrient and sediment loss across the Basin
Represented by four variables: The average concentration of nitrate in water that leaches out of plant root zones; the total amount of nitrate that leaches annually from plant root zones; the total annual phosphorus loss from surface runoff; and the total annual sediment loss from land surface runoff.
Long description: This grouped bar chart shows percentage changes in ecosystem quality across four land-use scenarios: Cropland Conservation, America’s Pasture, Restoration Agriculture, and Hotspots for Transformation. Ecosystem quality is represented by two indicators: ecosystem carbon (green bars) and perennial biomass (orange bars).
The vertical axis ranges from -100% to +100% and includes a bold zero line. Positive percent represents improvement from the baseline while negative percent represents worsening.
Under Wet and Warm:
- Ecosystem Carbon: Cropland Conservation = 17.9%, America’s Pasture = 15.9%, Restoration Agriculture = 21.1%, Hotspots for Transformation = 18.6%.
- Perennial Biomass: Cropland Conservation = 46.7%, America’s Pasture = 57.7%, Restoration Agriculture = 85.7%, Hotspots for Transformation = 64.2%.
Under Dry and Hot:
- Ecosystem Carbon: Cropland Conservation = 11.5%, America’s Pasture = 9.1%, Restoration Agriculture = 14.6%, Hotspots for Transformation = 12.2%.
- Perennial Biomass: Cropland Conservation = 43.4%, America’s Pasture = 53%, Restoration Agriculture = 81.1%, Hotspots for Transformation = 60.2%.
Scenario notes: Under both Wet and Warm and Dry and Hot, ecosystem carbon and biomass generally increase across all scenarios, with the largest gains for both indicators in Restoration Agriculture.
Ecosystem Quality
Total perennial biomass and carbon storage
Perennial biomass is the total weight of all perennial plants in the region – including forests, grasslands, pasture, and wetlands – as a proxy for biodiversity. Carbon storage is the amount of carbon in aboveground plants, soils, and belowground biomass, an indicator of less carbon contributing to global warming when carbon storage increases.
* 2002-2021 (Baseline 0) and 2051-2070 (Future)