Science & Insight
Understanding research. Local testing. Open sharing.
MNM wants to connect the development of nature and food projects with verifiable knowledge. On this page we explain which studies are relevant, what they have investigated and where the limits of their conclusions lie.
Research into future food demand
The study by Van Dijk and colleagues compares existing future scenarios. [1] Such scenarios help explore different possibilities. They are not a calendar of fixed events and not proof of the success of an individual initiative.
Soil health research
Xu and colleagues analyze global data on soil, climate and agricultural management. In their analysis, soil health is associated with approximately 12% of global variation in crop production and 22% of variation in nitrogen utilization. [3] Those percentages describe differences in the analysis; they do not mean that soil restoration increases every harvest by 12% or saves 22% fertilizer everywhere.
Research into agroforestry and warming
Torralba and colleagues examine existing European comparisons of agroforestry systems. [4] Zhao and colleagues combine four methods to assess temperature influences on crops. [8] The source maps further below make visible which systems, circumstances and assumptions underlie such results.
Different types of publications
A study with data, a meta-analysis and an assessment report have different functions. The IPCC chapter is an assessment of existing knowledge. [2] Whalen & Gul write a News & Views contribution; Risoli and colleagues a Down to Business article. [5] [6] These provide explanation and perspective, but are not presented here as new field experiments.
Our proposed method
MNM wants to determine a research question, initial situation and measurement plan in advance. We want to compare methods, document conditions and costs, adapt the approach and share results. This also includes disappointing results. A personal source of inspiration and a measurement result remain recognizable as different types of information.
Research and resources
View the approach, the most important outcome and the limits of the research for each publication. The application to MNM is our own interpretation; these studies do not examine MNM projects.
[1] Future food demand
Van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L. & Saghai, Y. (2021). A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010-2050. Nature Food, 2, 494-501.
Publication type: Systematic review and meta-analysis of model projections.
Approach: 57 global scenario studies, brought together across different socio-economic futures.
Outcome: The total food demand increases in the scenarios examined by 35–56% between 2010 and 2050. With climate change in the scenarios, the bandwidth is 30–62%. The comparison is with 2010, not with today.
Limits: The studies show varying hunger outcomes, including declines. Food demand and hunger are different indicators. The analysis proves no inevitable global food crisis or fixed start date.
[2] Climate, agriculture and food
IPCC (2022). Food, Fiber and Other Ecosystem Products. AR6 Working Group II, Chapter 5, p. 713-906. Book published by Cambridge University Press (2023).
Publication type: International review of existing scientific literature.
This chapter reviews existing knowledge on climate influences on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food. It is an overview report and not a separate field experiment. It serves as additional context here.
[3] Soil health and agricultural production
Xu, J. et al. (2025). Soil health contributes to variations in crop production and nitrogen use efficiency. Nature Food, 6, 597-609.
Publication type: Global analysis of soil, climate and agricultural management data.
Approach: Combination of fine-grained global datasets to estimate contributions to production differences.
Outcome: In the analysis, soil health explains approximately 12% of the global variation in crop production and 22% of the variation in nitrogen utilization. Agricultural management explains about 70% of the yield variation.
Limits: This is not a randomized MNM field trial. The analysis substantiates attention to soil quality, but does not provide a guaranteed effect percentage for soil restoration at a specific location.
[4] European agroforestry systems
Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G. & Plieninger, T. (2016). Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 230, 150-161.
Publication type: Meta-analysis of European research results.
Approach: 53 publications and 365 comparisons with conventional agriculture and forestry.
Outcome: Average benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services; no clear overall positive impact on manufacturing services. The effect on biomass was negative.
Boundaries: The systems and conditions examined differ. The results are not automatically transferable to every food forest or climate. This does not prove increased food production or complete food self-sufficiency.
[5] Interpretation of soil health
Whalen, J. K. & Gul, S. (2025). Managing soil health for resilient crop production. Nature Food, 6, 535-536.
Publication type: News & Views; reflective contribution.
Additional explanation about the role of healthy soil. Use as an explanation, not as a second independent test that confirms the same effect figures.
[6] Technology for soil and food
Risoli, S. et al. (2026). SoilTech innovations for sustainable soil and food security. Nature Reviews Bioengineering, 4, 110-111; published online on December 22, 2025.
Publication type: Down to Business; reflective article about innovation.
Discusses approaches to soil conservation, improvement and restoration. No new field experiment and no evidence that a particular technology is profitable for MNM.
[7] Meaning of food security
FAO (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security.
Publication type: Explanatory document, no effect study.
Four classic dimensions: availability, access, utilization and stability. Food security also concerns the question of whether people can actually obtain and use food.
[8] Temperature and major food crops
Zhao, C. et al. (2017). Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(35), 9326-9331.
Publication type: Comparative synthesis of four research methods; supplementary to the MNM source file.
Approach: Global and local crop models, statistical analyzes and field experiments on warming.
Result: Average per 1 °C global warming: wheat -6.0%, rice -3.2%, maize -7.4% and soy -3.1%, without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation and genetic improvement.
Limits: These are aggregated estimates under stated conditions. Regions differ; there are also positive estimates. The figures do not describe the total future food supply and do not indicate a crisis date.
Source check: September 18, 2026. The public summaries were used for Van Dijk, Xu and Torralba; at Zhao the complete text. Publication details, type and publisher's summary were checked for the articles under review. The IPCC chapter has been bibliographically checked. This source overview is not a systematic update of all literature.