Yesterday, I was wondering how much there might be scope, under climate change, to increase crop yields in places that were presently limited by either climate, or the absence of modern agricultural technology. Sharon Astyk suggested that agriculture moving poleward would be limited by poor soil quality.
I don't personally know much about this issue, so I spent some time this morning hunting around to try and develop some better intuition for it. Recall that we were looking at this map of crop yields (which is a rather crude measurement of total crop weight averaged across all crops):
Besides the possibility of better agro-forestry systems in the tropics, obvious questions looking at this map are whether more production can be had from Canada, Argentina, Scandinavia, and northern Russia as they warm up.
The most useful set of maps I found for this purpose where in this presentation (pps). This is based on an analysis of a UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) map of soil types around the globe, and then applies something called the Soil Functional Capacity Classification System, which is designed to assess the suitability of soils for plough-based arable agriculture.
(It's of interest that soil scientists seem to feel that their maps are not good enough, and are working on doing better). But this seems to be the best available at present.)
There isn't a single figure of merit of soil quality provided, but we can look at maps of the various deficiencies and gain some sense of the situation. First up is the areas where the soil is just too darn cold now (soil temperature low, but not actually permafrost):
If you compare to the crop yield map above, you can see that these are mostly areas of low or non-existent yield. Presumably most of this belt will continue to shift northward in coming decades.
Next is a map which shows soils that have various forms of agriculturally significant nutritional deficiencies:
Note the famously poor tropical soils, but also the poor soils in the southeastern US (which may explain why that area is not the epicenter of US agricultural productivity). Also, a lot of eastern Canada has poor soils, as do Scandinavia. However, Argentina, Alberta in Canada and parts of Russia would seem to be ok.
Next is a map of acid soils with aluminum toxicity, which has a lot of overlap with the map of nutritional deficiencies above:
Next up, erodible soils:
Then places with soils that currently tend to be waterlogged:
Alberta has some of this going on. However, if you recall the drought severity PCA, Alberta seems to be actually getting drier, so that could be a good trend there. Meanwhile, Argentina seems to be getting wetter, which might allow more agriculture in places that are presently limited by aridity.
There were some other maps of soil problems that are rarer, or relatively easily correctible, but the ones above seem to be the most important.
Now, let me be the first to admit that staring at global soil and climate maps like this is a very crude exercise, and no substitute for detailed knowledge of the areas in question. But on the face of it, it does seem that there might be some non-trivial areas of the planet that have decent soils, but are presently not being exploited due to climatic factors that might improve in the future.
Note: This post is part of the Future of Drought Series on Early Warning.