10 pages., Via online journal., Development of natural resource user typologies has been viewed as a potentially
effective means of improving the effectiveness of natural resource management engagement
strategies. Prior research on Corn Belt farmers’ perspectives on climate change employed
a latent class analysis (LCA) that created a six-class typology—the Concerned, Uneasy,
Uncertain, Unconcerned, Confident, and Detached—to develop a better understanding of
farmer perspectives on climate change and inform more effective climate adaptation and
mitigation outreach strategies. The LCA employed 34 variables that are generally unobservable—beliefs about climate change, experience with extreme weather, perceived risks of
climate change, and attitudes toward climate action—to identify types. The research reported
in this paper builds on this typology of Corn Belt farmers by exploring 33 measures of observable farm enterprise characteristics, land management practices, and farmer demographics to
assess whether variations in these observable characteristics between the six farmer classes
display systematic patterns that might be sufficiently distinctive to guide audience segmentation strategies. While analyses detected some statistically significant differences, there were
few systematic, meaningful observable patterns of difference between groups of farmers with
differing perspectives on climate change. In other words, farmers who believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, that it poses risks to agriculture, and that adaptive action
should be taken, may look very much like farmers who deny the existence of climate change
and do not support action. The overall implication of this finding is that climate change
engagement efforts by Extension and other agricultural advisors should use caution when
looking to observable characteristics to facilitate audience segmentation. Additional analyses
indicated that the farmer types that tended to be more concerned about climate change and
supportive of adaptive action (e.g., Concerned and Uneasy) reported that they were more
influenced by key private and public sector actors in agricultural social networks. On the
other hand, farmers who were not concerned about climate change or supportive of adaptation (e.g., the Unconcerned, Confident, and Detached groups, comprising between one-third
and one-half of respondents) were less integrated into agricultural networks. This suggests that
Extension and other agricultural advisors should expand outreach efforts to farmers who are
not already within their spheres of influence.
15 pages, Cover crops—crops grown primarily to protect and improve soil—are widely considered to be an important component of sustainable agricultural systems because their use can provide multiple ecosystem services without compromising yields over time. Specialty crops—fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops—are increasingly important to US agriculture and food security and uniquely vulnerable to climate-related problems that cover crops can help to address. Yet far less research has been conducted on cover crop use by farmers who grow mainly specialty crops, compared to the much larger body of research on farmers who principally grow row crops like corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). In this study, we draw on survey data from a stratified, random sample of 881 specialty crop growers in Michigan and Ohio to accomplish two main goals. First, we seek to characterize cover crop use among this important group of farmers, focusing on types of cover crop used and use of multiple types. Second, we examine the relationship between cover crop use on vegetable and fruit farms and key social and economic factors, with particular attention to farmers’ environmental values, adherence to organic principles, and sources of information. According to survey results, cover cropping is more likely when farmers (1) manage certified organic (p < 0.01) or organic-in-practice (p < 0.05) farms; (2) report being influenced by private crop consultants (p < 0.01); (3) attach high importance to agri-environmental goals (p < 0.01); and (4) grow vegetable crops instead of or in addition to fruit crops (p < 0.001). No relationship was found to exist between cover cropping and farmers’ concerns about climate-related risks, education level, or perceived self-efficacy. We conclude by suggesting that the importance of structural factors to farmers’ decisions about cover crops should not be underestimated. Promoting and strengthening the market for organic food may be the most direct pathway toward increasing the number of farmers who use cover crops. Historically important entities in agricultural networks, including cooperative extension and conservation nongovernmental organizations, might enhance their impact on cover crop use by forming new partnerships with private crop consultants.
14pgs, The adoption of soil conservation practices by farmers offers the potential to greatly improve soil health and water quality at large geographic scales. In considering the potential benefits of soil conservation practices to improve ecological outcomes on farms, it is important to ascertain where farmers get their information about soil conservation and what type of information they are exposed to and by whom. One primary way that farmers learn about soil conservation practices is via agricultural trade publications (ATPs). We conducted a content analysis using a computational text analysis method to analyze all the online soil conservation coverage from four influential ATPs in Wisconsin. We focused on 10 different soil conservation practices and found that the most frequently covered soil conservation practices were tillage, manure, and grazing. Additionally, we analyzed the thematic categories for how each soil conservation practice was covered in terms of agricultural, environmental and economic benefits. Generally, articles tended to mention environmental and economic benefits more than agricultural benefits across all soil conservation practices. We also unpacked the subcategories of environmental benefits using cover crops practice as an example to demonstrate how it was covered in terms of subcategories such as biodiversity, sustainability, climate change, water quality, and soil health. Our analysis also looked at how agricultural technology was featured in the stories about soil conservation and found that this category was regularly mentioned for each practice. Finally, we examined the message sources for stories on soil conservation and found that extension and the federal government were the most the frequently cited entities. We also discussed how this form of computational content analysis can provide longitudinal insights about trends in a particular soil conservation practice like cover crops, which showed a clear upward trend in coverage in ATPs for the time period studied. These nuanced content analyses provide insights into what types of thematic categories are featured about soil conservation practices covered in ATPs in Wisconsin. Advocates of soil conservation practices can use our results to determine if some practices could benefit from more attention in ATPs as well as which benefits and themes have received more media coverage. Additionally, stakeholders from entities that serve as different message sources can determine how their organizations are doing as the spokespeople for the soil conservation practices being advocated.
13 pages, via Online journal, Natural resource advisors operate at a natural resource-climate nexus that presents opportunity for utilization of regionally relevant climate science and tools to support climate smart decision making among land managers. This opportunity, however, may be underutilized. In thousands of county offices across the country, USDA field staff with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) interface with farmers on a daily basis to provide conservation technical assistance, farm loans, and disaster recovery assistance. In this study, we conducted a survey of NRCS field staff (n = 1,893) and a similar survey of FSA field staff (n = 4,621) to determine the following: (1) how concerned USDA field staff are with both general and specific climate and weather threats and their effect on agriculture and forestry, (2) what available climate and weather resources staff are currently using, (3) how these factors relate to USDA field staff's confidence and interest in playing the role of climate advisor, and (4) the differences that exist between NRCS and FSA field staff related to these research questions. We found that many USDA field staff are concerned about climate change in general and about several specific impacts, but fewer are confident in their ability to support land managers in addressing these impacts. Additionally, increased concern about climate threats was related to higher levels of climate and weather resource use and an increased desire to play the role of climate advisor, but was also related to lower levels of self-reported ability to play that role. These findings can be used to inform appropriate application of professional development opportunities and creation of tools and resources to improve professional uses of weather and climate information.
7 pages, via Online journal, The mid-nineteenth century Hudson River School of painting reflects artists' views of American paradise, a glorified Hudson River landscape where the disappearing wilderness, agriculture, and human settlements coexisted along the river in perfect harmony. The romantic, peaceful coexistence of nature and humans became an unsustainable illusion as the twentieth century 507 km (315 mi) Hudson River became a major transportation route to the northern and western interior of the United States (figure 1). Like many rivers throughout history, navigation of the Hudson River waters fostered tanneries, paper mills, factories, electrical plants, and other enterprises along its coastline (Rothstein 2019). Rivers, with their abundant water supply and capacity to transport raw materials and finished goods, fueled the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, and the Hudson River was exemplary in its contributions. Settlements and industries along the Hudson River valley flourished, creating jobs, expanding communities, and bringing economic prosperity to the region and the nation. In its wake, followed an era of industrial pollution that left an ugly mark on the river celebrated for its beauty and pristine waters. In 1984, 321 km (200 mi) of the Hudson River was classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site—one of the largest in the country.
12 pages, via Online journal, Corn (Zea mays) grown in the southern Piedmont requires 200 to 280 kg nitrogen (N) ha−1 annually and requires up to 0.87 cm of water per day, making groundwater systems susceptible to nitrate (NO3−) leaching. A perennial white clover (Trifolium repens L.) living mulch (LM) system may reduce NO3-N leaching by using legume N to replace mineral N, though little information is available on such a system in the southern Piedmont. Therefore, a HYDRUS-1D model was used to simulate water and NO3-N flux in three cover crop systems. Cereal rye (Secale cereal L.) (CR), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) (CC), and a white clover LM were fertilized with 280, 168, and 56 kg N ha−1. The HYDRUS-1D model was calibrated and validated with observed water contents and NO3-N data that were collected over two years. Water and NO3-N flux models were created for each treatment and evaluated using coefficient of determination, percentage bias, and index of agreement, and showed good agreement to observed data. Nitrate leaching below 1 m in 2015/2016 was 23.5, 12.7, and 21.4 kg ha−1 for the CC, LM, and CR treatments, respectively, but was less than 1 kg ha−1 for all treatments in 2016/2017 due to prolonged drought. Differences in leached NO3-N among treatments were attributed to variation in mineral N application rate and NO3-N uptake by cover crops. Overall, results suggest that the use of a perennial LM system may reduce NO3-N leaching when compared to annual CC and CR cover crop systems.
11 pages, via Online journal, The Soil Vulnerability Index (SVI) was developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to identify inherent vulnerability of cropland to runoff and leaching. It is a simple index that relies on the SSURGO database and can be used with basic knowledge of ArcGIS. The goal of this study was to investigate a relationship between constituent (sediment and nutrient) loadings and fraction of the watershed in each SVI class. The SVI maps were developed for each of the seven subwatersheds of the Mark Twain Lake watershed in Missouri, which were similar in soil conditions and climatic variability. The SVI assessment was performed by investigating if the distribution of the SVI for cropland in each subwatershed could help explain measured 2006 to 2010 sediment and nutrient loads better than crop distribution alone. Regression analyses were performed between annual loads of sediment and nutrients exported from the watersheds and a composite number that included either cropland distribution alone, or cropland distribution combined with the SVI. Coefficients of determination and p-values were compared to assess the ability of land use and SVI distributions to explain stream loads. Integrating the SVI in the land cover variable improved the ability to explain constituent loads in the watersheds for sediment, total nutrients, and dissolved nitrogen (N). Regression results with and without the SVI were identical for dissolved phosphorus (P), potentially indicating that SVI was not indicative of dissolved P transport at the current site. Overall, the application of the SVI at watershed scale was not perfect, but acceptable at correctly identifying cropland of greatest vulnerability and linking with transported constituent loads.
9pgs, Soil loss due to crop harvest contributes to land degradation, and knowledge of this challenge can guide the choice of crops for sustainable agriculture. Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) and the third largest producer of peanut (Arachis hypogaea Linn) in the world. Due to limited information on soil loss during peanut and cassava harvests worldwide, and cost of nutrient loss, a two-year field experiment was conducted to compare soil loss due to harvesting of peanut and cassava and to estimate cost of nutrient loss due to crop harvest under traditional agriculture. Peanut pod yields of 2.39 and 2.08 t ha–1harvest–1 removed 0.62 and 0.58 t ha–1 harvest–1 during peanut harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Similarly, cassava yields of 22.71 and 21.40 t ha–1 harvest–1 removed 1.11 and 0.91 t ha–1harvest–1 during cassava harvest, respectively, for years 1 and 2. Crop yields strongly correlated with soil loss due to peanut harvest (R2= 0.36; p < 0.001) and soil loss due to cassava harvest (R2 = 0.23; p < 0.01). Significantly higher soil loss due to cassava harvest compared to peanut harvest can be ascribed to higher cassava yield. Also, soil nutrient loss due to crop harvest was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for cassava compared with peanut by 27.6% phosphorus (P) and 73.7% potassium (K) for the first year and 39.2% P and 79.1% K for the second year. Fertilizer equivalent cost of P and K losses due to cassava harvest for the two years was higher than that of peanut by US$29 ha–1. The study indicated that the intensity of nutrient loss by harvesting is largely dependent on the crop type, and harvesting of cassava can deplete soil nutrients faster than that of peanut under traditional agriculture. Sequential planting of cassava (deep rooted crop) followed by peanut (shallow rooted crop) as a crop rotation management practice is recommended to mitigate soil loss due to continuous harvesting of cassava, and harvesting with thorough shaking technique is also suggested to reduce nutrient loss potential of crop harvesting.
6 pages, via Online journal, Most agricultural soils are depleted of their soil organic matter (SOM) reserves. A severe loss of SOM content may degrade soil functionality, its capacity for provisioning of essential ecosystem services, and soil health. Therefore, restoration of SOM content in soils of agroecosystems may reverse the degradation trends, enhance ecosystem services (Banwart et al. 2015), and advance Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. (Lal et al. 2018a). Increase in SOM content may also partially replace the use of chemical fertilizers and supplemental irrigation, while restoring the environment.
