From: Vermont, USA
My guess is that there's more than one variable at work. In areas past or present where the societies are more tribal and/or defined by needs that are further down in the hierarchy, I think resource/food scarcity could absolutely cause wars of survival and would correlate well. Arguably, if you have a period of resource/food scarcity that goes on long enough, all societies would be reduced to this level. This is not to say that some peaceful ways out of the problem might not be found, but overall there would likely be an increase in violence on the raiding/skirmish level if not necessarily large scale warfare (which you might be able to afford early on in a shortage, but perhaps less so later on). Beyond this, if a society enters a time of need with significantly greater military resources than its neighbors, a period of conquest to take resources from others to stave off shortages may naturally follow, so what condition you're in and what tendencies your society already has may simply be magnified by the shortage.
My second guess is that societies with plenty of resources can afford large scale warfare and generally develop a whole new tier of needs that have little to do with physical needs and more to do with convoluted social and political structures that can create a myriad of pretexts for war. If you can afford to have a war and have many possible perceived reasons to do so, it could also lead to an increase in warfare.
Of course, then one wonders if societies that have their needs met, but not the point of abundance, and have not developed overly complex structures to create new needs would be the most peaceful?
I suspect though that if you look at raiding/skirmish warfare on the one hand and large scale warfare on the other, you may find two different correlations to times of plenty and times of need.