ArticlePlant physiology2025
Vertical farming limitations and potential demonstrated by back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Article in Plant physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Focus issue editorial: Numeracy, realism, and relevance in plant science.Plant physiology · 2025Article
- Instance-level phenotype-based growth stage classification of basil in multi-plant environments.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Improving food security and reducing the environmental footprint of food production is urgently needed to satisfy the growing global population in a time of climate, biodiversity, and water pressures. Indoor vertical farming is largely independent of environmental conditions and is reported to reduce the land and water required for food production. However, vertical farming requires large amounts of energy. Based on the vertical farming energy cost, we derive from basic considerations a current minimum cost of ≈$10/kg dry plant matter. Vertical farming is therefore not currently competitive with dried cereals or pulses (e.g. wheat, rice, and soybeans). We also show limited current competitiveness for products like tomatoes and lettuce, despite a low dry matter content. Whereas the environmental implications of vertical farming depend on the electricity source. Using the average newly installed electricity mix in recent years (predominantly solar and wind, with some coal, natural gas, and bioenergy), vertical farming could substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions and has limited land benefits compared with conventional agriculture. Using exclusively electricity from photovoltaics, some environmental benefits could be achieved for crops with a low dry matter content like lettuce, but this is more limited for dried crops like wheat. The transparent calculations we provide here set out challenges for vertical farming and highlight that improvements in both the overall vertical farming energetic efficiency (≈1% to 2%), as well as low-impact electricity sources are needed in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.