Crop Species Diversity Changes in the United States: 1978-2012

Citation: Aguilar, J., Gramig, G. G., Hendrickson, J. R., Archer, D. W., Forcella, F., & Liebig, M. A. (2015). Crop Species Diversity Changes in the United States: 1978-2012. Plos One, 10(8), 14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136580Anecdotal accounts regarding reduced US cropping system diversity have raised concerns about negative impacts of increasingly homogeneous cropping systems. However, formal analyses to document such changes are lacking. Using US Agriculture Census data, which are collected every five years, we quantified crop species diversity from 1978 to 2012, for the contiguous US on a county level basis. We used Shannon diversity indices expressed as effective number of crop species (ENCS) to quantify crop diversity. We then evaluated changes in county-level crop diversity both nationally and for each of the eight Farm Resource Regions developed by the National Agriculture Statistics Service. During the 34 years we considered in our analyses, both national and regional ENCS changed. Nationally, crop diversity was lower in 2012 than in 1978. However, our analyses also revealed interesting trends between and within different Resource Regions. Overall, the Heartland Resource Region had the lowest crop diversity whereas the Fruitful Rim and Northern Crescent had the highest. In contrast to the other Resource Regions, the Mississippi Portal had significantly higher crop diversity in 2012 than in 1978. Also, within regions there were differences between counties in crop diversity. Spatial autocorrelation revealed clustering of low and high ENCS and this trend became stronger over time. These results show that, nationally counties have been clustering into areas of either low diversity or high diversity. Moreover, a significant trend of more counties shifting to lower rather than to higher crop diversity was detected. The clustering and shifting demonstrates a trend toward crop diversity loss and attendant homogenization of agricultural production systems, which could have far-reaching consequences for provision of ecosystem system services associated with agricultural systems as well as food system sustainability

Conversations with non-choir farmers: Implications for conservation adoption. Report for the Walton Family Foundation

The following report documents the results and implications for the study, “Conversations with non-choir farmers: Implications for conservation adoption”. We conducted 10 in-person focus groups with farmers (IN=5; IA=3; IL=2) and three online focus groups with non-operating landowners (NOLs) who own land in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa. This research sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are viable strategies beyond what WFF is currently investing in to promote agricultural practices that that reduce nutrient runoff? 2) How and under what conditions can policies help to change farmer and landowner behavior? What are potential barriers, particularly resistance from the agricultural sector? 3) What do Corn Belt farmers think about the limits to voluntary conservation? Do they see a need to think beyond voluntary conservation? 4) What suggestions do Corn Belt farmers have for how to motivate wide-spread adoption of conservation practices to improve water quality? 5) How could new policies and incentives be tied to existing funding streams (e.g., Farm Bill) or other financial incentives? The focus group questions were designed to foster participants’ discussions of their perceptions on seven topics related to the research questions: 1) regulation; 2) conservation barriers; 3) market-based policies; 4) conservation targeting; 5) motivations for widespread conservation adoption; 6) communication networks; and 7) certification programs and private sector funding for conservation. The following pages include data from the 13 focus groups – 10 with farmers and 3 with NOLs. We conclude with implications of our findings

Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature

Copyright © 2019 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. This is a comprehensive review of all published, quantitative studies focused on adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States between 1982 and 2017. This review finds that, taken as a whole, few independent variables have a consistent statistically significant relationship with adoption. Analyses showed that variables positively associated with adoption include the farmer self-identifying primarily as stewardship motivated or otherwise nonfinancially motivated, environmental attitudes, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, previous adoption of other conservation practices, seeking and using information, awareness of programs or practices, vulnerable land, greater farm size, higher levels of income and formal education, engaging in marketing arrangements, and positive yield impact expected. Some variables often thought to be important, such as land tenure, did not emerge as consistently important in this cross-study review. Other variables, such as farmers’ sense of place, training, presence of institutional conditions supporting adoption, and the role of collective decision making are not measured in enough studies to draw conclusions but potentially have a relationship with adoption decisions. Implications for how to promote conservation adoption and directions for future research are discussed. Because positive attitudes and awareness of conservation programs or practices are positive predictors of adoption, practitioners should share benefits of specific practices and programs and leverage existing practice adoption. Further work to explore relationships between conservation adoption and the role of farmer identity, nuances of land tenure, and the influence of structural factors is needed. Moreover, we suggest that future research should focus on the impact of different messages and avenues of reaching farmers in order to continue to inform conservation practices. Future research should consider both individual and institutional factors that facilitate and constrain adoption

Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature

This is a comprehensive review of all published, quantitative studies focused on adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States between 1982 and 2017. This review finds that, taken as a whole, few independent variables have a consistent statistically significant relationship with adoption. Analyses showed that variables positively associated with adoption include the farmer self-identifying primarily as stewardship motivated or otherwise nonfinancially motivated, environmental attitudes, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, previous adoption of other conservation practices, seeking and using information, awareness of programs or practices, vulnerable land, greater farm size, higher levels of income and formal education, engaging in marketing arrangements, and positive yield impact expected. Some variables often thought to be important, such as land tenure, did not emerge as consistently important in this cross-study review. Other variables, such as farmers\u27 sense of place, training, presence of institutional conditions supporting adoption, and the role of collective decision making are not measured in enough studies to draw conclusions but potentially have a relationship with adoption decisions. Implications for how to promote conservation adoption and directions for future research are discussed. Because positive attitudes and awareness of conservation programs or practices are positive predictors of adoption, practitioners should share benefits of specific practices and programs and leverage existing practice adoption. Further work to explore relationships between conservation adoption and the role of farmer identity, nuances of land tenure, and the influence of structural factors is needed. Moreover, we suggest that future research should focus on the impact of different messages and avenues of reaching farmers in order to continue to inform conservation practices. Future research should consider both individual and institutional factors that facilitate and constrain adoption

MulchH2O Project Data

Polyethylene plastic mulch is widely used in organic horticultural systems to suppress weeds and promote crop performance through optimization of soil temperature and moisture. Unfortunately, disposal of this non-biodegradable material is associated with negative environmental impacts that are misaligned with goals of organic agriculture. We propose to develop biodegradable alternative mulches that effectively suppress weeds, but also enhance or maintain soil health while mitigating plastic pollution.With producer collaboration, we conducted exploratory studies to assess weed suppression associated with a simple cellulosic mulch applied as an aqueous slurry (hydromulch) in organic carrot production. Our study, along with others, showed promising results, but with room for improvement. We propose to conduct experiments, also in collaboration with organic producers, to develop new composite hydromulch formulations ? optimizing physico-mechanical properties such as tensile strength, puncture resistance, rain-fastness, porosity, C:N ratio, and soil adhesion. We will explore, with producer involvement, novel application methods for installing hydromulches in organic blueberry, strawberry, onion, and broccoli production systems. Weed communities will be assessed in each crop to determine hydromulch efficacy. Comprehensive soil measurements will document hydromulch impacts on numerous soil health metrics. Cost-benefit analyses will document economic benefits associated with hydromulching.To accomplish these objectives, numerous experiments will be conducted in both controlled environments (laboratory and greenhouse) and in the field. Types of data that will collected include weed density and biomass under various mulch treatments, mulch deterioration, crop growth and yield responses, mulch physical properties, and soil responses to mulch presence, incorporation and decomposition. Economic data will also be collected about the cost of using these approaches in a production context.All these data collected are stored and available as *.csv files that are titled according to datatype and contain comments explaining treatment codes, units, and other information that facilitates use of the data.USDA-NIFA Organic Research and Extension Initiative, ND05057USDA Hatch Funding, ND0151

Impacts of Organic Zero Tillage Systems on Crops, Weeds, and Soil Quality

sustainabilit

Conversations with non-choir farmers: Implications for conservation adoption. Report for the Walton Family Foundation

The following report documents the results and implications for the study, “Conversations with non-choir farmers: Implications for conservation adoption”. We conducted 10 in-person focus groups with farmers (IN=5; IA=3; IL=2) and three online focus groups with non-operating landowners (NOLs) who own land in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa. This research sought to answer the following research questions: 1) What are viable strategies beyond what WFF is currently investing in to promote agricultural practices that that reduce nutrient runoff? 2) How and under what conditions can policies help to change farmer and landowner behavior? What are potential barriers, particularly resistance from the agricultural sector? 3) What do Corn Belt farmers think about the limits to voluntary conservation? Do they see a need to think beyond voluntary conservation? 4) What suggestions do Corn Belt farmers have for how to motivate wide-spread adoption of conservation practices to improve water quality? 5) How could new policies and incentives be tied to existing funding streams (e.g., Farm Bill) or other financial incentives? The focus group questions were designed to foster participants’ discussions of their perceptions on seven topics related to the research questions: 1) regulation; 2) conservation barriers; 3) market-based policies; 4) conservation targeting; 5) motivations for widespread conservation adoption; 6) communication networks; and 7) certification programs and private sector funding for conservation. The following pages include data from the 13 focus groups – 10 with farmers and 3 with NOLs. We conclude with implications of our findings.</p