Fig 1.
The major breadbasket regions under study and regions affected by the defined events.
This figure was generated with the Mapping package in python.
Fig 2.
A screenshot of the structure of the WITS total trade network for 2016.
Which is the most recent on the site WITS. Link thickness is proportional to country export share while the node size (Weighted in degree) is proportional to the relevance of each country as a buyer in the selected sub-network. Country names are in ISO3 format. This figure is used for the purpose of illustration.
Fig 3.
Share of aggregated agricultural production for the year 2018.
This figure shows top agricultural producing countries. (a), (c), and (e) are bubble maps showing top crops, livestock, and total (crop + livestock) producing regions while (b), (d), and (f) are bar charts indicating top ten crop, livestock, and total (crop + livestock) producing regions. Names of countries in the bar charts are in ISO3 format. A list of country names, their ISO3 codes and continents can be found in Tables 6–9 in S1 File. The maps are generated using the Basemap package in python.
Table 1.
Comparative study to assess the effects of higher degree of entanglement in global supply and trade network and total agricultural production on cascaded agricultural production value losses from concurrent extreme weather events.
Fig 4.
Median production and consumption value losses over all concurrent forcing scenarios.
Top 10 countries with most production value losses (a) and least production value losses/gains (b). (c) and (d) are top 10 consumption value losers and gainers respectively. This figure shows that India, Brazil, Russia, Canada Iran are very vulnerable regions. The USA, China, and the EU shows price hikes.
Table 2.
Average production value and consumption value losses in the agricultural sectors for all forcing scenarios.
A comparative analysis is done over the key agricultural regions. Values are in Billion USD.
Table 3.
Average production value and consumption value losses in all economic sectors for all forcing scenarios.
A comparative analysis is done over the key agricultural regions. Values are in Billion USD.
Fig 5.
A share of the median agricultural production (a) and consumption value losses (b) when aggregated over all concurrent forcing scenarios.
For the consumption value losses, negative areas experience a rise in consumption value while positive areas experience a drop in consumption value. Ones again, the bread basket regions of India, Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and most of South America, shows vulnerability. Countries names are in ISO3 format. A list of country names, their ISO3 codes and continents can be found in Tables 6–9 in S1 File Figures were generated using Datawrapper online tool.
Fig 6.
A comparative analysis of the various forcing scenarios on the mean agricultural production value losses 6a and consumption values losses 6b. Economic production value and consumption value losses are presented in 6c and in 6d respectively.