Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31754037›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Assessing the sustainability of post-Green Revolution cereals in India.

Kyle Frankel Davis, Ashwini Chhatre, Narasimha D Rao, Deepti Singh, Suparna Ghosh-Jerath, Anvi Mridul, Miguel Poblete-Cazenave, Nabin Pradhan, Ruth DeFries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kyle Frankel DavisDepartment of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; kfdavis@udel.edu rd2402@columbia.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4504-1407
Ashwini ChhatreIndian School of Business, Hyderabad 500032, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5374-7867
Narasimha D RaoSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511.ORCID 0000-0003-1888-5292
Deepti SinghSchool of the Environment, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163.ORCID 0000-0001-6568-435X
Suparna Ghosh-JerathIndian Institute of Public Health-Delhi, Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002, India.
Anvi MridulSchool of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.
Miguel Poblete-CazenaveInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, A-2361 Austria.
Nabin PradhanIndian School of Business, Hyderabad 500032, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3833-815X
Ruth DeFriesDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 kfdavis@udel.edu rd2402@columbia.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3332-4621

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sustainable food systems aim to provide sufficient and nutritious food, while maximizing climate resilience and minimizing resource demands as well as negative environmental impacts. Historical practices, notably the Green Revolution, prioritized the single objective to maximize production over other nutritional and environmental dimensions. We quantitatively assess outcomes of alternative production decisions across multiple objectives using India's rice-dominated monsoon cereal production as an example. We perform a series of optimizations to maximize nutrient production (i.e., protein and iron), minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and resource use (i.e., water and energy), or maximize resilience to climate extremes. We find that increasing the area under coarse cereals (i.e., millets, sorghum) improves nutritional supply (on average, +1% to +5% protein and +5% to +49% iron), increases climate resilience (1% to 13% fewer calories lost during an extreme dry year), and reduces GHGs (-2% to -13%) and demand for irrigation water (-3% to -21%) and energy (-2% to -12%) while maintaining calorie production and cropped area. The extent of these benefits partly depends on the feasibility of switching cropped area from rice to coarse cereals. Based on current production practices in 2 states, supporting these cobenefits could require greater manure and draft power but similar or less labor, fertilizer, and machinery. National- and state-level strategies considering multiple objectives in decisions about cereal production can move beyond many shortcomings of the Green Revolution while reinforcing the benefits. This ability to realistically incorporate multiple dimensions into intervention planning and implementation is the crux of sustainable food production systems worldwide.

Indexed as

Edible GrainSustainable DevelopmentAgricultureEnvironmentFood SupplyHumansIndiaNutritive ValueOryzacerealsGreen RevolutionIndiasustainable agriculturetradeoffs

Identifiers

PMID31754037
PMCPMC6911172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.