Delicate balance between what nature provides and what humanity consumes is under threat

As global pressures mount, the natural systems that support human life – from food to water to Earth’s carbon storage systems – are being pushed out of balance.

A new study maps four key ecosystem services – food production, carbon storage, soil protection, and water – at one-kilometer resolution over 20 years.

The research shows how the balance between nature’s supply chain and human demand has changed around the world.

Nature’s global supply chain

Ecosystem services feed communities, regulate floods, store carbon, and keep soils anchored, yet no global analysis has mapped their supply-versus-demand gaps through time.

Earlier work focused on single nations or short periods, leaving governments to guess how pressures play out at larger scales.

To fill that gap, researchers from Nanjing Agricultural University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences merged satellite imagery with multi-model coupling. They then tracked annual changes from 2000 to 2020 for nearly every terrestrial pixel on Earth.

Food up, carbon and water down

The headline result looks comforting at first glance: taken together, the four services have leaned toward surplus, mainly because agricultural yields and soil-retention practices improved in many regions. But the good news stops there.

Carbon storage and water yield are becoming problematic, especially around dense megacities or industrial belts. By 2020, 76.74% of land had lost carbon storage, while water deficits spread in drylands and irrigated regions.

Spatial patterns jump off the map. Resource-rich but sparsely populated zones – remote boreal forests, high Andean grasslands, northern Australian savannas – still show ample ecological “income” with limited local “spending.”

However, fast-growing population centers in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and coastal China tell a different story. In these regions, soaring demand is outpacing dwindling supply chain.

What tips the supply chain

The team then asked which force tips each ledger – human activity or climate variability? Their attribution analysis reveals a complex picture.

Food production and carbon sequestration mismatches are mainly human-made, linked to cropland expansion, fertilizer use, fossil-fuel emissions, and land-use change.

Soil conservation and water yield gaps, by contrast, relate more strongly to precipitation swings and temperature trends that scientists tie to climate change.

Climate meets human pressure

Results also show striking complementarity: regions where human pressure lightens often coincide with places where climate impacts intensify, and vice versa.

Improved farming and good weather boosted food supply across 80.69% of the planet’s land area. Yet, carbon sinks shrank in most of those same areas because hotter temperatures accelerated ecosystem respiration.

“Pinpointing where and why nature’s services fall short is crucial for smart policy,” said corresponding author Wei Wu, a scientist at Nanjing Agricultural University.

“Our findings show that it’s not a matter of climate versus human activity – it’s about their interaction. Recognizing this dual influence is key to crafting effective land-use and conservation strategies in an era of accelerating change.”

A guide for planners

The pixel-level resolution – each square just one kilometer on a side – means national governments can zoom into trouble spots instead of relying on coarse regional averages.

Urban areas with water shortages may boost groundwater or recycle greywater; regions losing carbon might restore forests or soils. Where food deficits appear, agricultural zoning or crop diversification might offset risk.

The scientists argue that blanket policies are likely to miss local nuances. Mountain catchments suffering water-yield declines will need different interventions from lowland deltas losing soil to erosion.

Because the drivers vary by service and location, the recommended strategies must also vary – “precision conservation” rather than one-size-fits-all.

Smarter food and water planning

The team acknowledges that their demand indicators remain relatively coarse – population density for food, for example, or evapotranspiration proxies for water.

The researchers call for future work to incorporate finer-grained socioeconomic data, differentiate industrial from subsistence demand, and include ecosystem beneficiaries such as pollination and recreation.

Still, the framework shows how high-resolution remote sensing coupled with machine learning can unpack global patterns once obscured by data gaps.

Balancing nature’s supply chain

With the planet edging toward climate-system thresholds, the margin for ecological overdraft is shrinking. The new atlas helps decision-makers see where supply and demand are out of balance – and whether humans or climate are to blame.

It also underscores a sobering truth: gains in food and soil security do not offset the twin deficits in carbon storage and water supply.

By mapping those four lifelines pixel by pixel and year by year, the study offers both a warning and a blueprint. Regional surpluses can’t hide shortfalls elsewhere, and no single cause explains the growing patchwork of ecological risks.

Only integrated policies that recognize the intertwined dance of climate change and human footprint stand a chance of keeping nature’s services solvent for the decades ahead.

The study is published in the journal Environmental Science and Ecotechnology.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–