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.
Clayton, Kenneth C. (author), Denley, Timothy (author), Ogg, Clayton W. (author), and Ogg: Agricultural Economist, Food and Agricultural Policy Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Denley: Agricultural Program Specialist, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Clayton: Director, National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1983-07
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 73 Document Number: C03597
6 pages, In this time of information overload, successfully engaging farmers with compelling outreach materials is a major challenge for conservation programs and related research projects. One potential approach is targeting information to the recipient, e.g., local rather than regional soil and water conditions, when sending messages to farmers. Targeted information may increase engagement by making materials stand out as more relevant and useful; conversely, it may decrease engagement by making farmers wary of the program and how it is using the information. We tested the effect of targeted information on farmer engagement using a large, randomized controlled trial in Iowa. In partnership with Iowa State University, we sent 2,996 farmers a single mailing with information about erosion at the local watershed (targeted) or state (control) level and measured their responses to a two-minute survey. We found that targeted information increased relative response rates by 20%, from 13.8% to 16.4%. This level of increase is meaningful for practitioners, as well as statistically significant. Our findings show that targeted information can be an important tool for practitioners and researchers seeking to better connect with farmers who are inundated with marketing mail.
Heady, Earl O. (author), Langley, James (author), Olson, Kent D. (author), and Olson: Agricultural Economist, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis; Langley: Research Assistant, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames; Heady: Director and Distinguished Professor, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1982
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 71 Document Number: C03203
14 pages, As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers’ decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.
