ArticlePDF Available

Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems

University of California Press
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Over the past two decades, ecologists have gained a considerable amount of insight concerning the effects of biological diversity on how ecosystems function. Greater productivity, greater carbon sequestration, greater retention of nutrients, and greater ability to resist and recover from various forms of stress, including herbivorous pests, diseases, droughts, and floods, are among the effects of increased biological diversity noted in a recent review by Cardinale et al. (2012). The latter effect, often called resilience, is particularly important in managed social-ecological systems, including agroecosystems (Walker and Salt, 2006). In addition to being better able to withstand and recover from disturbances due to pests, weather, and other biophysical factors, resilient agroecosystems can be less susceptible to fluctuations in production costs and market prices.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
elementascience.org
Enhancing agroecosystem performance and
resilience through increased diversication
of landscapes and cropping systems
Matt Liebman 1* Lisa A. Schulte2
1Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States
2Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States
*mliebman@iastate.edu
Over the past two decades, ecologists have gained a considerable amount of insight concerning the eects
of biological diversity on how ecosystems function. Greater productivity, greater carbon sequestration,
greater retention of nutrients, and greater ability to resist and recover from various forms of stress, including
herbivorous pests, diseases, droughts, and oods, are among the eects of increased biological diversity noted
in a recent review by Cardinale et al. (2012). e latter eect, often called resilience, is particularly important
in managed social-ecological systems, including agroecosystems (Walker and Salt, 2006). In addition to
being better able to withstand and recover from disturbances due to pests, weather, and other biophysical
factors, resilient agroecosystems can be less susceptible to uctuations in production costs and market prices
(National Research Council, 2010; Kremen and Miles, 2012).
In general, the relationship between biological diversity and ecosystem function resembles an asymptotic
hyperbola (Cardinale et al., 2012). That is, increases in the number of species present in an ecosystem from
a very low level to some intermediate level engender large changes in ecosystem function, whereas increases
in species richness above some intermediate, and undetermined, value engender smaller effects.
Another way to look at biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships is through the lens of losing species
diversity. Professor Shahid Naeem of Columbia University uses the following analogy to examine how many
species might be lost from an ecosystem before critical functions are no longer available: Imagine you have
a computer on your desk that works well. Now open it, reach in with a needle nose pliers and randomly
remove five of the many parts of the motherboard. Do you expect the computer to continue to function well
after the loss of those parts?
The development of modern, industrial agriculture has been characterized by large reductions in biological
diversity, both across landscapes and within farming systems (DeFries et al., 2004; Vandermeer et al., 2005).
This loss of biodiversity is particularly evident in the U.S. Corn Belt. Where species-rich prairie grasslands,
wetlands, and oak savannas once grew, corn and soybean now dominate (Klopatek et al., 1979). Farming
systems that once contained small grains, hay, and pasture in addition to corn and soybean now contain almost
exclusively the latter two crops (Hatfield et al., 2009; Brown and Schulte, 2011; Johnston, 2013). In Iowa,
which has lost proportionally more area of its native vegetation than any other U.S. state (Klopatek etal.,
1979), corn and soybean now occupy 63% of the state’s total land area and 82% of its cropland (National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2014).
Simplification of crop and non-crop vegetation in the Corn Belt has been a strategy pursued through
decisions and actions of individual farmers and through federal and state policies, with a goal of producing
huge amounts of corn, soybean, chickens, cattle, hogs, ethanol, and farm revenue (Durrenberger and Thu, 1996;
Secchi et al., 2009; Nassauer, 2010; McGranahan et al., 2013). It has also been concomitant with simplification
of management strategies and increases in scale ( Johnston, 2013; McGranahan, 2014). Nonetheless, despite
impressive gains in farm productivity and revenue, Corn Belt agricultural systems and the region’s residents
are threatened by a number of emerging and continuing challenges, including soil erosion, water quality
degradation by nutrient and pesticide emissions, greater prevalence of herbicide-resistant weeds, volatility
in production costs and crop prices, loss of knowledge and infrastructure to support diverse markets, and
declines in rural community vitality (Tegtmeier and Duffy, 2004; Alexander et al., 2008; Sullivan et al., 2009;
Brown and Schulte, 2011; Sprague et al., 2011; Mortensen et al., 2012; Heathcote et al., 2013). Perhaps most
Domain Editor-in-Chief
Anne R. Kapuscinski, Dartmouth
Associate Editor
Ricardo J. Salvador, Union of
Concerned Scientists
Knowledge Domain
Sustainability Transitions
Article Type
Commentary
Part of an Elementa
Forum
New Pathways to Sustainability
in Agroecological Systems
Received: September 24, 2014
Accepted: January 15, 2015
Published: February 12, 2015
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
2Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
emblematic of the Corn Belt’s environmental effects is the annual discharge of nearly one million metric tons
of nitrogen into the Gulf of Mexico from agricultural lands lying upstream in the Mississippi River Basin,
leading to a large coastal hypoxic zone (Alexander et al., 2008; Broussard and Turner, 2009).
Much of the dysfunction of industrial agriculture in the Corn Belt derives from the low levels of biologi-
cal diversity now present across landscapes and within farming systems in the region (Broussard and Turner,
2009; Liebman et al., 2013; Asbjornsen et al., 2014). Of particular importance is the fact that shallow-rooted,
short-season crops like corn and soybean have replaced native, perennial species whose deep roots and long
growth period from early spring to late fall are much more effective in holding soil in place, promoting water
infiltration into soil and transpiration into the atmosphere, fostering carbon sequestration and nutrient retention,
and providing habitat for pollinators, biological control agents, and a host of other organisms (Asbjornsen et
al., 2014). The consequences of this shift in vegetation are illustrated by results from an experiment conducted
in Illinois comparing nitrate-N losses to drainage water from two annual crops—corn and soybean—and a
reconstructed, multispecies prairie community harvested for biomass. After a two-year establishment period
for the perennial prairie species, loss of leached N was 9- to 18-fold greater from the annual crops than from
the prairie community (Smith et al., 2013).
The effects of integrating diverse, deep-rooted communities of perennial plants into landscapes and
watersheds dominated by row crops are being investigated in experimental watersheds in central Iowa in
which strips of reconstructed prairie have been interwoven into corn and soybean fields (Figure 1). As shown
in Figure 2, there was a 95% reduction in sediment export, a 90% reduction in total phosphorus export, and
an 85% reduction in total nitrogen export from watersheds containing 10% prairie when compared to 100%
row-crop watersheds managed without tillage (Helmers et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2014). Additional benefits
Figure 1
Science-based Trials of Rowcrops
Integrated with Prairie Strips
(STRIPS) experiment at the Neal
Smith National Wildlife Refuge,
Iowa.
In the STRIPS experiment, small
amounts of reconstructed native
prairie vegetation have been integr-
ated into row crop elds to improve
the performance and increase the
resilience of agricul tural water-
sheds. Image credit: Anna
MacDonald.
doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.f001
Figure 2
Summary of performance results
from the STRIPS experiment.
Ratio of performance indicators
in watersheds with prairie strips
(10% prairie strips and 90% row-
crops) to performance indicators
in watersheds without prairie
strips (100% row-crops). Soil
sediment data are from Helmers
et al. (2012); phosphorus,
nitrogen, and rainfall runo data
are from Zhou et al. (2014); crop
data are unpublished; bird data
are from MacDonald (2012);
and plant data are from Hirsh
etal. (2013). Data were collected
during 2008-2012 from three
replicate watersheds for each
treatment.
doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.f002
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
3Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
for biodiversity conservation of plants and birds have been documented in these experimental watersheds
(Figure 2; Hirsh et al., 2013; Liebman et al., 2013). The average annual cost of treating a farm field with
prairie conservation strips ranges from $60 to $85 per treated hectare, making it one of the least expensive
conservation practices available to landowners and farmers (Tyndall et al., 2013).
Results from the prairie strips study emphasize that biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships can be
highly non-linear: small changes in the proportion of land area used for prairie rather than row crops gave
disproportionately large conservation benefits. Such benefits may be increasingly important as a shift in the
region’s climate regime toward a greater frequency of high intensity rainfall events threatens agroecosystem
resilience by increasing soil erosion and crop damage, even in zero-tillage systems (Rosenzweig et al., 2002;
Angel et al., 2005; Pryor et al., 2014). On the other hand, though yields of corn and soybean per cropped hectare
were unaffected by the presence of the prairie conservation strips, total production of corn and soybean were
reduced 10% due to the substitution of prairie vegetation for crops. Thus, increases in soil, water, and nature
conservation involved a trade-off with crop production. While the prairie strips study compares row-crop
fields containing diverse, native, perennial vegetation with crop fields without diverse prairie communities,
other studies have shown that compared with annual crops, monocultures of perennial species can also confer
substantial environmental benefits; the type and level of benefit varies with plant species and management
(Asbjornsen et al., 2014).
The degree of diversification within cropping systems can have important effects on crop productivity. A
recent review by Bennett et al. (2012) found yield reductions from 3 to 57% for major crops grown in short
rotation sequences and monocultures relative to yields in extended rotation sequences that included multiple
crop species. Lower productivity in less diverse rotations was attributed to numerous interactive factors,
including increased prevalence and greater damage from insect pests and weeds, deleterious interactions with
soil microbes and nematodes, soil compaction, nutrient depletion, self-inhibition due to toxic compounds
from plant exudates, and reduced soil water availability. Alternatively, cropping system diversification through
the use of multispecies crop rotations can maintain soil fertility and productivity, suppress pests, and increase
yields even in situations where substantial amounts of fertilizers and pesticides are applied (Karlen et al., 1994).
Rotation systems foster diversity not only in time, but also in space, since different crops within the rotation
sequence are typically grown in different fields on a farm in the same year. Diversification through crop rotation
can be an especially useful strategy in farming systems that integrate crop and livestock production, through
the production of perennial forage crops and the application of manure on crop fields (Russelle et al., 2007).
Table 1. Inputs, aquatic toxicity, yields, weed biomass, and net returns for the three cropping systems in the Marsden
Farm rotation experiment, Boone Co., IA, 2006–2011a
Cropping system
Metrics: 2-year rotation:
Corn-soybean
3-year rotation:
Corn-soybean-oat
+ red clover
4-year rotation:
Corn-soybean-oat
+ alfalfa-alfalfa
Whole rotation:
Mineral N fertilizer inputs, kg N ha-1 yr-1 80 a 9 b 7 b
Herbicide inputs, kg active ingredients ha-1 yr-1 1.78 a 0.07 b 0.05 b
Herbicide aquatic toxicity, comparative toxic units 21973 a 74 b 56 b
Fossil energy inputs, GJ ha-1 yr-1 8.9 a 4.0 b 4.1 b
Labor requirements, hr ha-1 yr-1 1.7 c 2.8 b 3.6 a
Net returns to land and managementb, $ ha-1 yr-1 954 965 913
Crop yields:
Corn, Mg ha-1 12.3 b 12.6 a 12.9 a
Soybean, Mg ha-1 3.4 b 3.7 a 3.8 a
Oat, Mg ha-1 3.5 b 3.6 a
Alfalfa, Mg ha-1 — — 8.9
Weed biomass:
In corn, kg ha-1 2.9 6.2 5.5
In soybean, kg ha-1 0.8 2.4 2.1
aWithin rows, means followed by dierent letters are signicantly dierent (P < 0.05); means not followed by letters are statistically
equivalent. Data are from Davis et al. (2012).
bCrop subsidy payments were not included as sources of revenue.
doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.t001
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
4Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
Davis et al. (2012) found that diversification of simple corn-soybean cropping systems with small grain
crops and perennial forages can be a viable strategy for reducing reliance on mineral fertilizers, pesticides,
and fossil fuel inputs, while maintaining or improving crop yields, profitability, pest suppression, and envi-
ronmental quality (Table 1). Compared with a conventionally managed corn-soybean system, more diverse
rotation systems (corn-soybean-oat/red clover and corn-soybean-oat/alfalfa-alfalfa) treated periodically with
cattle manure used 90% less mineral nitrogen fertilizer, 97% less herbicide, and 54% less fossil energy, while
producing corn yields that were 4% higher, and soybean yields that were 10% higher. Weed suppression was
effective in all systems, but herbicide-related aquatic toxicity was two orders of magnitude lower in the more
diverse systems. When calculated over all crop phases, net returns to land and management were equivalent
for each system, though labor requirements were greater for the more diverse systems.
Biological diversity contributed in multiple ways to the successful functioning of the more diverse rotation
systems examined in this experiment. For example, though oat added relatively little revenue to the more
diverse systems (Liebman et al., 2008), it served as an effective companion crop for establishing red clover
and alfalfa, thereby minimizing erosion and reducing weed growth in the absence of herbicides. Forage crops
were generally less profitable than corn (Liebman et al., 2008), but their inclusion in the more diverse systems
allowed substantial reductions in the amount of mineral nitrogen fertilizer used for corn production (Fox
and Piekielek, 1988; Morris et al., 1993) and contributed to greater nitrogen retention (Drinkwater etal.,
1998; Tomer and Liebman, 2014). Integration with livestock, through forage harvest and manure return,
fostered nutrient balance and further reduced production costs (Davis et al., 2012). Finally, diversifying
the corn–soybean system with small grain and forage crops increased the diversity of habitats available to
insects and rodents that preyed upon weed seeds, which is likely to have stabilized seed predator popula-
tions and increased their effectiveness in suppressing weed population growth under conditions of reduced
herbicide inputs (Westerman et al., 2005; Heggenstaller et al., 2006; O’Rourke et al., 2006; Williams et al.,
2009). Spreading the burden of weed control over multiple tactics through diverse rotation systems and their
attendant management practices is a key strategy for retarding the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds,
and is particularly relevant to the management of glyphosate-resistant weed species, which are increasingly
prevalent in the Corn Belt and which present a clear example of a human-induced challenge to agroecosystem
resilience (Mortensen et al., 2012).
Although we have presented just two case studies of how diversification might be used to enhance agro-
ecosystem performance and resilience in the U.S. Corn Belt, studies conducted in other regions also support
diversification as a key principle underpinning the design of multifunctional agroecosystems that provide a
wide range of goods and services while protecting environmental quality (Altieri, 1995; Kremen and Miles,
2012; Asbjornsen et al., 2014). Additional options for diversifying landscapes and cropping systems include the
use of mixed species pastures for dairy and beef production (Sulc and Tracy, 2007); perennial grains for food
and feed production (Cox et al., 2006); cover crops to fill otherwise unoccupied temporal niches (Snapp et
al., 2005); dedicated perennial grasses and native mixed-species communities for biofuel feedstock production
(Heaton et al., 2013); herbaceous and woody species for reconstructing wetlands (Zedler, 2003) and riparian
corridors (Schultz et al., 2004); and trees for agroforestry plantations ( Jose et al., 2012).
Given the broad portfolio of diversification options that are, or soon could be, technically feasible, how
might greater diversification be implemented? Currently, weak markets and a lack of marketing infrastructure
impede the production of ‘alternative’ crops in areas dominated by only one or two commodity crops. Thus,
in addition to the need to supply farmers with necessary technical information and inputs for producing
non-traditional crops, planning for generating a critical mass of producers and the development of expedited
paths to markets are needed. This is particularly true in the case of ‘second-generation bioenergy crops, for
which new biomass collection strategies and processing facilities are needed (Heaton et al., 2013).
Failure to recognize and prevent the costs of environmental degradation incurred by current patterns of
agricultural land use penalizes citizens downwind and downstream of regions of intensive commodity pro-
duction, as well as those in future generations dependent upon unpolluted air, clean and abundant freshwater
resources, productive soils, abundant pollinators, and other components of resilient ecosystems. Diversifica-
tion of agricultural landscapes and cropping systems offers one of the best and most accessible strategies for
resolving the seemingly intractable tension between agricultural production and environmental quality (Boody
et al., 2005; Jordan and Warner, 2010; Liebman et al., 2013; Asbjornsen et al., 2014; McGranahan, 2014).
Of particular importance is the fact that substantial numbers of agricultural stakeholders are interested in
reconfigurations of landscapes and cropping systems in ways that enhance resource conservation and biodiver-
sity. Nassauer et al. (2011) examined the attitudes of Iowa farmers and farmland investors toward alternative
land management systems ranging from maintenance of status quo patterns of corn and soybean production
to a shift toward greater perennial cover, either as a part of rotational grazing systems or through greater use
of conservation buffer strips. Under the assumption that all scenarios were equally profitable, less than 25%
of the farmers and fewer than 10% of the investors ranked the status quo scenario most preferable. Boody
etal. (2005) conducted a statewide survey in Minnesota to determine how much residents were willing to
pay to reduce environmental impacts of agriculture in a manner consistent with the effects of greater planting
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
5Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
of small grains and forages in corn and soybean-based cropping systems, and including more pastureland
and more perennial conservation buffers in the overall landscape. Respondents indicated that they would be
willing to pay an average of $201 per household annually to achieve reductions in soil erosion, nutrient runoff,
flooding, and greenhouse gas emissions from Minnesota farmland, while gaining increases in wildlife habitat.
Often forgotten in the discourse over alternative paths in U.S. agriculture is the fact that there is already
substantial public investment in maintaining the status quo of land use and commodity crop production.
That investment could be shifted toward the types of diversification practices named here. Between 1995 and
2012, U.S. farmers received $231 billion in federal crop subsidies, supported by tax dollars, for a narrow group
of commodity crops and insurance that promoted production of those crops, compared with $39 billion in
federal conservation payments (Environmental Working Group, 2014). Shifting commodity crop and insurance
subsidies toward conservation and ecosystem service payments could provide strong financial incentives for
farmers to increase crop and non-crop diversity at targeted locations within agricultural landscapes, while
maintaining farm income. Diversification’s documented effects on natural resource conservation and protection
indicate it could benefit both farmers and society at large by enhancing the resilience of cropping systems to
climate change and other large-scale environmental stresses (Kremen and Miles, 2012). Moreover, a shift of
support from commodity and insurance subsidies to payments for agricultural conservation programs, farm-
derived ecosystem services, new and expanded market opportunities, and reoriented research and extension
activities could generate additional benefits, including a more stable and secure food supply, cleaner air and
water, larger wildlife populations, and improved outdoor recreational experiences (Iles and Marsh, 2012).
ough understanding of the eects of diversication in agroecosystems has expanded considerably in
recent years, substantial knowledge gaps remain, especially with regard to questions of scale, appropriate
domains of inference, and the impacts of social and economic factors. Questions we feel especially important
to address include the following:
• Whatfunctionalrolesdoparticularspeciesplayinimprovingagroecosystemperformanceandresilience,
and how can this information be used to design agroecosystems that will promote high yields and
conserve resources over the long term?
• Towhatextentdotheplot-levelstudies(i.e.,<0.5 ha) that have dominated agroecological research
to date reect the eects of biodiversity on ecological function and resilience at farm, landscape, and
regional scales?
• Towhatextentaretheresearchresultsfromoneregiontransferrabletoothers?
• Whatisthevalueofan agroecologicalapproachto agriculture,suchasincreasedcropand non-crop
diversity, in comparison to other approaches?
• Whatkindsofpolicies,informalgovernancestructures,andeducationalactivitiessupporttheadoption
by farmers of low-external-input, diversied agroecological approaches in dierent settings around the
world?
• Whatstrategiescanbeemployedtogarnergreatercooperationbetweenscientists,farmers,andother
stakeholders in answering these questions at farm, landscape, and regional scales?
We welcome submissions to this forum addressing these and other salient questions on how diversication
and other agroecological approaches can enhance farm and landscape performance and resilience.
Returning to Professor Naeem’s analogy, there is widespread recognition that computers play an impor-
tant role in our everyday lives. What we tend to forget is that healthy food, farms, and farm landscapes are
far more important, garnering benets at individual to global scales and for present and future generations.
While the challenge of sustaining highly functional, resilient agroecosystems cannot be reduced to protect-
ing a motherboard from damage, it is not intractable. Indeed, tangible and practical approaches are already
in hand. Concerted eort to build upon current agroecological foundations, especially the importance of
enhancing biological diversity, is likely to yield a highly desirable future for all.
References
Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Boyer EW, Nolan JV, et al. 2008. Dierences in phosphorus and nitrogen delivery
to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin. Environ Sci Technol 42: 822–830.
Altieri MA. 1995. Agroecology: e Science of Sustainable Agriculture. 2nd edition. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Angel JR, Palecki MA, Hollinger SE. 2005. Storm precipitation in the United States. Part II: Soil erosion characteristics.
J Appl Meteorol 44: 947–959.
Asbjornsen H, Hernández-Santana V, Liebman M, Bayala J, Chen J, et al. 2014. Targeting perennial vegetation in agricul-
tural landscapes for enhancing ecosystem services. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29: 101–125. doi: 10.1017/
S1742170512000385.
Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D, Hilton S, Mills P. 2012. Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge
of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biological Reviews 87: 52–71.
Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow DA, Krinke M, Westra J, et al. 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United States.
BioScience 55: 27–38.
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
6Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
Brown PW, Schulte LA. 2011. Agricultural landscape change (1937–2002) in three townships in Iowa, USA. Landscape
Urban Plan 100: 202–212.
Broussard W, Turner RE. 2009. A century of changing land-use and water-quality relationships in the continental US.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 302–307.
Cardinale BJ, Duy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity.
Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature11148.
Cox TS, Glover JD, van Tassel DL, Cox CM, DeHaan LR. 2006. Prospects for developing perennial grain crops. BioSci-
ence 56: 649–659.
Davis AS, Hill JD, Chase CA, Johanns AM, Liebman M. 2012. Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity,
protability and environmental health. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047149.
DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP. 2004. Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 2: 249–257.
Drinkwater LE, Wagoner P, Sarrantonio M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen
losses. Nature 396: 262–265.
Durrenberger EP, u KM. 1996. e expansion of large scale hog farming in Iowa: e applicability of Goldschmidt’s
ndings fty years later. Hum Organ 55: 409–415.
Environmental Working Group (EWG). 2014. Farm payments, United States summary information. EWG: Washington,
D.C. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?ps=00000&statename=theUnitedStates.
Fox RH, Piekielek WP. 1988. Fertilizer N equivalence of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover for succeeding corn crops.
J Prod Agric 1: 313–317.
Hateld JL, McMullen LD, Jones CS. 2009. Nitrate-nitrogen patterns in the Raccoon River Basin related to agricultural
practices. J Soil Water Conserv 64(3): 190–199.
Heathcote AJ, Filstrup CT, Downing JA. 2013. Watershed sediment losses to lakes accelerating despite agricultural soil
conservation eorts. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053554.
Heaton EA, Schulte LA, Berti M, Langeveld H, Zegada-Lizarazu W, et al. 2013. Managing a second-generation crop
portfolio through sustainable intensication: examples from the USA and the EU. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Bioren-
ing. doi: 10.1002/bbb.1429.
Heggenstaller AH, Menalled FD, Liebman M, Westerman PR. 2006. Seasonal patterns in post-dispersal seed predation
of Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi in three cropping systems. J Appl Ecol 43: 999–1010.
Helmers MJ, Zhou X, Asbjornsen H, Kolka R, Tomer MD, et al. 2012. Sediment removal by prairie lter strips in row-
cropped ephemeral watersheds. J Environ Qual 41: 1531–1539. doi: 10.2134/jeq2011.0473.
Hirsh SM, Mabry CM, Schulte LA, Liebman M. 2013. Diversifying agricultural catchments by incorporating prairie
buer strips. Ecological Restoration 31: 201–211.
Iles A, Marsh R. 2012. Nurturing diversied farming systems in industrialized countries: how public policy can contribute.
Ecology and Society 17(4): 42. doi: 10.5751/ES-05041-170442.
Johnston CA. 2013. Agricultural expansion: land use shell game in the U.S. Northern Plains. Landscape Ecol 29: 81–95.
Jordan N, Warner KD. 2010. Enhancing the multifunctionality of US agriculture. BioScience 60: 60–66.
Jose S, Gold MA, Garrett HE. 2012. e future of temperate agroforestry in the United States, in Garrity D, Nair PKR,
eds., Agroforestry: e Future of Global Land Use, Advances in Agroforestry 9. New York, NY: Springer: pp. 217–245.
Karlen DL, Var vel GE, Bullock DG, Cruse RM. 1994. Crop rotations for the 21st century. Adv Agron 53: 1–45.
Klopatek JM, Olson RJ, Emerson CJ, Jones JL. 1979. Land-use conicts with natural vegetation in the United States.
Environ Conserv 6: 191–199.
Kremen C, Miles A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversied versus conventional farming systems: benets,
externalities, and trade-os. Ecology and Society 17(4): 40. doi: 10.5751/ES-05035-170440.
Liebman M, Gibson LR, Sundberg DN, Heggenstaller AH, Westerman PR, et al. 2008. Agronomic and economic per-
formance characteristics of conventional and low-external-input cropping systems in the central Corn Belt. Agron
J 100: 600–610.
Liebman MZ, Helmers MJ, Schulte LA, Chase CA. 2013. Using biodiversity to link agricultural productivity with envi-
ronmental quality: results from three eld experiments in Iowa. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28: 115–128.
MacDonald AL. 2012. Blurring the lines between production and conservation lands: Bird use of prairie strips in row-
cropped landscapes. M.S. esis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
McGranahan DA. 2014. Ecologies of scale: multifunctionality connects conservation and agriculture across elds, farms,
and landscapes. Land 3: 739–769. doi:10.3390/land3030739.
McGranahan DA, Brown PW, Schulte LA, Tyndall J. 2013. A historical primer on the U.S. farm bill: Supply management
and conservation policy. J Soil Water Conserv 68: 67A–73A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.68.3.67A.
Morris TF, Blackmer AM, El-Hout NM. 1993. Optimal rate of nitrogen fertilization for rst-year corn after alfalfa.
JProd Agric 6: 344–350.
Mortensen DA, Egan JF, Maxwell BD, Ryan MR, Smith RG. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed
management. BioScience 62: 75–84.
Nassauer JI. 2010. Rural landscape change as a product of U.S. federal policy, in Primdahl J, Swaeld S, eds., Globalisation
and Agricultural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Trends in Developed Countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press: pps. 185–200.
Nassauer JI, Dowdell JA, Wang Z, McKahn D, Chilcott B, et al. 2011. Iowa farmers’ responses to transformative scenarios
for Corn Belt agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv 66: 18A–24A.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2014. Iowa 2013 Annual Statistical Bulletin. NASS, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Iowa/Publications/Annual_Statisti-
cal_Bulletin/2013/index.asp.
National Research Council. 2010. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
Diversity affects agroecosystem performance and resilience
7Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 3: 000041 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000041
O’Rourke ME, Heggenstaller A, Liebman M, Rice ME. 2006. Post-dispersal weed seed predation by invertebrates in
conventional and low-external-input crop rotation systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 116: 280–288.
Pryor SC, Scavia D, Downer C, Gaden M, Iverson L, et al. 2014. Chapter 18: Midwest, in Melillo JM, Richmond TC,
Yohe GW, eds., Climate Change Impacts in the United States: e ird National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Washington, D.C. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest.
Rosenzweig C, Tubiello FN, Goldberg R, Mills E, Bloomeld J. 2002. Increased crop damage in the U.S. from excess
precipitation under climate change. Global Environ Chang 12: 197–202.
Russelle MP, Entz MH, Franzluebbers AJ. 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America.
Agron J 99: 325–334.
Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Simpkins WW, Colletti JP. 2004. Riparian forest buers in agroecosystems–lessons learned
from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa, USA. Agroforest Syst 61: 35–50.
Secchi S, Gassman PW, Williams JR, Babcock BA. 2009. Corn-based ethanol production and environmental quality: a
case of Iowa and the Conservation Reserve Program. Environ Manage 44: 732–744.
Smith CM, David MB, Mitchell CA, Masters MD, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, et al. 2013. Reduced nitrogen losses after
conversion of row crop agriculture to perennial biofuel crops. J Environ Qual 42: 219–228.
Snapp SS, Swinton SM, Labarta R, Mutch D, Black JR, et al. 2005. Evaluating benets and costs of cover crops for crop-
ping system niches. Agron J 97: 322–332.
Sprague LA, Hirsh RM, Aulenbach BT. 2011. Nitrate in the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 1980 to 2008: Are we
making progress? Environ Sci Technol 45: 7209–7216.
Sulc RM, Tracy BF. 2007. Integrated crop–livestock systems in the U.S. Corn Belt. Agron J 99: 335–345.
Sullivan DJ, Vecchia AV, Lorenz DL, Gilliom RJ, Martin JD. 2009. Trends in pesticide concentrations in Corn Belt
streams, 1996–2006. Scientic Investigations Report 2009-5132, National Water Quality Assessment Program, U.S.
Department of Interior–U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Tegtmeier EM, Duy MD. 2004. External costs of agricultural production in the United States. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability 2: 1–20.
Tomer MD, Liebman M. 2014. Nutrients in soil water under three rotational cropping systems, Iowa, USA. Agr Ecosyst
Environ 186: 105–114.
Tyndall J, Schulte LA, Liebman M, Helmers MJ. 2013. Field-level nancial assessment of contour prairie strips for en-
hancement of environmental quality. Environ Manage 52: 736–747. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0106-9.
Vandermeer J, Lawrence D, Symstad A, Hobbie S. 2002. Eect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed
systems, in Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, eds., Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: pps. 209–220.
Walker B, Salt D. 2006. Resilience inking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Westerman PR, Liebman M, Menalled FD, Heggenstaller AH, Hartzler RG, et al. 2005. Are many little hammers eec-
tive? Velvetleaf population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems. Weed Sci 53: 382–392.
Williams CL, Liebman M, Westerman PR, Borza J, Sundberg D, et al. 2009. Over-winter predation of Abutilon theophrasti
and Setaria faberi seeds in arable land. Weed Res 49: 439–447.
Zedler JB. 2003. Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and
Environment 1: 65–72.
Zhou X, Helmers MJ, Asbjornsen H, Kolka R, Tomer MD, et al. 2014. Nutrient removal by prairie lter strips in agricul-
tural landscapes. J Soil Water Conserv 69: 54–64.
Contributions
• Bothco-authorscontributedtothewritingandrevisionofthisarticle,andbothapprovethesubmittedversionfor
publication.
Acknowledgments
We thank Anna MacDonald for use of the Figure 1 photo.
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing interests.
Copyright
© 2015 Liebman and Schulte. is is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
... In contrast to simplified crop rotation, DCRs are a practice of planting three or more different types of crops on the same field in alternate field seasons Liebman et al. 2015). Common examples of DCR include a three-year corn-soy (Glycine max)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) rotation, a 5 + year corn-oat (Avena sativa)-perennial alfalfa (Medicago sativa) rotation, or any other number of crop sequence combinations (Bowles et al. 2020). ...
... For example, DCR and no-till increase the organic matter in the soil leading to a higher proportion of micropores, which helps in soil-water retention (Alhameid et al. 2019). Finally, DCR helps to control pests, weeds, and diseases, reduces the selection of pesticides pest resistance, and promotes ecosystem services and wildlife habitat Kolady, Wang, and Ulrich-Schad 2019;Liebman et al. 2015). Growing leguminous crops in rotation helps increase water infiltration, reduce the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, reduce soil erosion, and improve soil nutrient content Lehman, Osborne, and Duke (2017); Liebman et al. (2015); Roesch-McNally et al. 2018). ...
... Finally, DCR helps to control pests, weeds, and diseases, reduces the selection of pesticides pest resistance, and promotes ecosystem services and wildlife habitat Kolady, Wang, and Ulrich-Schad 2019;Liebman et al. 2015). Growing leguminous crops in rotation helps increase water infiltration, reduce the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, reduce soil erosion, and improve soil nutrient content Lehman, Osborne, and Duke (2017); Liebman et al. (2015); Roesch-McNally et al. 2018). Ultimately, these benefits lead to increased crop yield (Behnke et al. 2018;Kasu et al. 2019;Marini et al. 2020;Smith et al. 2008;Sindelar et al. 2016) and increased profits for farmers, a driving force in farmers' adoption of conservation practices (Bowman and Zilberman 2013). ...
... After a certain threshold, the addition of new species only marginally increases the effect of the entire assemblage. This indicates that these species possess redundant functionality (Schleuning et al. 2015), which could positively impact the provision of ecosystem services in terms of enhanced resilience against species losses (Whelan et al. 2008, Liebman and Schulte 2015, Smith et al. 2022). ...
Article
Insectivorous birds provide an essential ecosystem service in agriculture by feeding on arthropods considered pests but can also consume arthropods considered to be natural enemies of such pests. Therefore, depending on the dietary composition of the birds, intraguild predation could outweigh pest control services. This study addressed the agronomic quality, defined as the trade-off between ecosystem services (pest control) and disservices (intraguild predation), of 26 insectivorous bird species in culturally and economically important cider apple orchards in northern Spain. We used DNA-metabarcoding techniques to analyze bird’ diets. First, we examined whether the trophic position of bird species can be inferred from functional traits related to foraging and movement behavior and from the degree of insectivory in their diets. Then, we tested whether bird abundance and trophic position influenced agronomic quality, based on the proportion of arthropod crop pests and natural enemies in their diet. Finally, we combined bird abundance, insectivory and agronomic quality to infer the potential contribution of each bird species to pest control. Bird trophic position was positively related to the degree of insectivory, with this effect being modulated by traits related to body size. The trophic position of birds was inversely related to their agronomic quality. Nevertheless, the agronomic quality only slightly affected the differential contribution of bird species to the whole assemblage effect. Overall, we found the potential of insectivorous bird species to control pests can be estimated based on their trophic position. Yet, in agroecosystems with uneven avian species abundance, the potential contribution of bird species to pest-control services may be driven by their quantitative contribution rather than by the bird’s per capita, qualitative effects. Finally, our results suggest that rare insectivorous birds may have a redundant role in pest control, due to the overwhelming functional dominance of common species.
... In agroecosystems, ecological resilience and resistance can be enhanced by improving system diversity through practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, cover crops, or the integration of livestock (Liebman and Schulte, 2015;Murrell, 2017). It has long been known that PSFs influence agricultural production and form the basis for crop rotation (Van der Putten et al., 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
Plants shape their surrounding soil, influencing subsequent plant growth in a phenomenon known as plant–soil feedback (PSF). This feedback is driven by chemical and microbial legacies. Here, we cultivated six crops from two functional groups, i.e., three grasses (Lolium, Triticum, and Zea) and three legumes (Glycine, Lens, and Medicago), to condition a living soil. Subsequently, the same species were sown as response plants on conspecific and heterospecific soils. We employed high-throughput sequencing in tandem with soil chemistry, including total organic matter, pH, total nitrogen, electrical conductivity, phosphorus, and macro and micro-nutrients. Our results showed that Glycine exhibited the strongest negative PSF, followed by Triticum and Zea, while Lolium displayed low feedback. Conversely, Lens demonstrated robust positive PSF, with Medicago exhibiting slight positive feedback. Soil chemistry significance indicated only higher Cl content in Triticum soil, while Lens displayed higher Zn and Mn contents. Microbial diversity exhibited no significant variations among the six soils. Although conditioning influenced the abundance of functionally important microbial phyla associated with each plant, no specificity was observed between the two functional groups. Moreover, each crop conditioned its soil with a substantial proportion of fungal pathogens. However, co-occurrence analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between all crop’s biomass and fungal pathogens, except Glycine, which exhibited a strong negative correlation with mutualists such as Arthrobacter and Bacillus. This underscores the complexity of predicting PSFs, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of plant interactions with both pathogens and mutualists, rather than focusing solely on host-specific pathogens.
... Among the various recommendations for achieving sustainability while maintaining productivity, agricultural diversification stands out as a convincing approach Tamburini et al. 2020;Liebman and Schulte-Moore 2015;Davis et al. 2012). Diversification can be implemented at the field, farm, and landscape levels. ...
Article
Full-text available
This viewpoint paper emphasises the need to diversify food production methods to simultaneously combat hunger and reduce environmental problems. The recommendations of the UN Food System Summit 2021 relate primarily to (i) the conservation of natural ecosystems, (ii) the sustainable management of existing agricultural land while increasing productivity and (iii) the restoration of already degraded land. Europe in particular faces unique challenges, such as reducing pollution and promoting organic farming up to 25 percent of the agricultural land area while maintaining food production. Ongoing efforts aim to create a transparent, fair and multi-level regulatory framework to support the Green Deal. The implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will sooner or later affect a larger proportion of European farmers, should support the transition. Science and innovation play a central role in this, as they are the cornerstones on which sustainable food systems are built. It is imperative that farmers actively participate in the co-design processes and utilise their wealth of experience and creativity to drive these innovations forward. A crucial aspect of the transition to sustainability is changing consumption patterns to limit food waste and reduce meat consumption. While this transition is essential, it is not without its formidable challenges. Diversification of agriculture, encompassing a spectrum of established techniques, is touted as a promising approach to achieving sustainability without sacrificing productivity. Furthermore, integrating truly sustainable agricultural practices with cutting-edge innovations, including new genomic techniques, has the potential to be a transformative solution.
... Agricultural diversification at farm, market, and landscape scales has the potential to significantly improve the wellbeing of humans and ecosystems in the Corn Belt. Low levels of biological diversity on farmland are a direct cause of environmental decline in the region; even small areas of diversified land use, like perennials, have been shown to significantly improve environmental quality, while landscape-scale diversification has the potential to bring greater benefits (Liebman and Schulte-Moore 2015). Other farm-level diversification strategies like small grains and grazed livestock help reduce input use, increase yield, and improve soil quality (Liebman et al. 2008;Maughan et al. 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
Agricultural diversification in the Midwestern Corn Belt has the potential to improve socioeconomic and environmental outcomes by buffering farmers from environmental and economic shocks and improving soil, water, and air quality. However, complex barriers related to agricultural markets, individual behavior, social norms, and government policy constrain diversification in this region. This study examines farmer perspectives regarding the challenges and opportunities for both corn and soybean production and agricultural diversification strategies. We analyze data from 20 focus groups with 100 participants conducted in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa through a combined inductive and deductive approach, drawing upon interpretive grounded theory. Our results suggest that when identifying challenges and opportunities, participants center economics and market considerations, particularly income, productivity, and market access. These themes are emphasized both as benefits of the current corn-soybean system, as well as challenges for diversification. Additionally, logistical, resource and behavioral hurdles– including the comparative difficulty and time required to diversify, and constraints in accessing land, labor, and technical support– are emphasized by participants as key barriers to diversification. Agricultural policies shape these challenges, enhancing the comparative advantage and decreasing the risk of producing corn and soybeans as compared to diversified products. Meanwhile, alternative marketing arrangements, farmer networks, family relationships, and improved soil health are highlighted as important opportunities for diversification. We contextualize our findings within the theories of reasoned action and diffusion of innovation, and explore their implications for farmer engagement, markets, and agricultural policy, and the development of additional resources for business and technical support.
... Iowa leads the U.S. in production of corn, eggs, and hogs and is the second-largest producer of soybeans and oats (NASS 2022a). The gains realized in increased agricultural productivity throughout Iowa and the Midwest over the past 70 years are largely due to the rise of specialization, resulting in a landscape dominated by corn and soybeans (Schilling et al. 2008), as well as the intensified use of purchased inputs and increases in scale characteristic of the dominant farming model (Liebman and Schulte 2015). This industrial system of agriculture did not develop haphazardly, rather it has been socially constructed and maintained through long-term policy choices that favor this model of production (Cochrane 1993;Dimitri et al. 2005). ...
Article
Full-text available
Collective trauma refers to psychological effects that are experienced by a group of people in response to shared traumatic conditions. Farmers represent a unique population that is chronically exposed to potentially traumatic events and conditions particular to the agricultural industry. Farming communities in Iowa have experienced the farm crisis of the 1980s, decades of extreme weather events, rapidly fluctuating markets, trade wars, rising input costs, farm bankruptcies and foreclosures, and high rates of farmer suicides. Exposure to such conditions can potentially have dramatic effects on the people who experience them and the communities they live in. While research exists examining the behavioral health aspects of stress in farmers, no studies have examined the lived experiences of farmers within the framework of collective trauma and its effects on decision-making. To investigate how Iowa farmers perceive their own experiences of these potential types of collective trauma, this study conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with farmers and farmer-oriented behavioral health experts. Particular focus is placed on how collective trauma affects individual farmers, their families, and their farming communities, as well as how this type of trauma impacts farm management decisions and sustainability outcomes. Qualitative data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to develop a theoretical framework describing how collective trauma, in the form of environmental, financial, and community threats, impacts farm management decisions and, in turn, affects environmental, economic, and social sustainability outcomes. Potential implications for how agricultural policy can potentially address the effects and systemic causes of trauma are discussed.
... Industrial agriculture practiced worldwide disrupts fundamental ecological processes. This, triggers climate change and causs loss of biosphere integrity, destructive soil system changes, and pollution of the oceans with phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizers (Tilman et al., 2001;West et al., 2014;Liebman and Schulte, 2015;Steffen et al., 2015;DeLonge et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
Climate-friendly smart agriculture (CSA) describes a set of interventions aimed at sustainably increasing productivity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The aim of this study was to calculate the climate-friendly innovative technology usage indexes of sheep farms in Konya and to determine the affecting factors. Neyman allocation sampling method was used to determine the 151 sheep farms. As a result of the study, it has been determined that 5.96% of the enterprises are low level, 87.42% medium level and 6.62% high level climate-friendly innovative technology users. The general average of Climate-Friendly Innovative Technology Usage Index (CFITU) of the sheep farms is 52.88% and they are medium level climatefriendly innovative technology users. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the factors influencing the level of CFITU in sheep farms. The results showed that the dependent variable was explained by 7 independent variables with a percentage of 32.5%. Providing education and financial support to farmers in the region regarding climate change perception and technology usage will enhance the level of CFITU in enterprises.
... From an agribusiness viewpoint, this is not necessarily efficient. However, through their idea of saving, this redundancy helps to provide a sense of economic security and resilience for these farmers [59]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Community-based conservation in Indonesia is seamlessly intertwined with rural livelihoods and agriculture and food (agrifood) systems. In bridging conservation and livelihood, the state often imposes market-based mechanisms and value chain linkages onto smallholder farmers, which disparages other forms of livelihood strategies and modes of production. This paper, therefore, aims to document the diverse economies within forest-dependent communities that enable them to autonomously build a sustainable livelihood and contribute to conservation. We used Gibson-Graham’s diverse economies approach as a framework to understand the ways in which the diversity of economic means (subsistence, market-based, alternative) goes beyond a mere livelihood strategy, but also acts as a basis for a more democratic and inclusive conservation practice. To capture these livelihood stories, we employed participatory rural appraisal (PRA), in-depth semi-structured interviews with 89 key informants (including smallholder farmers, household members, community leaders, village officials, elders, and youths), and visual ethnographic approaches in six villages adjacent to forest areas in two provinces in Indonesia (Jambi and Papua). We conclude by emphasizing how the diverse economies approach helps in understanding the ways in which the local communities seamlessly move beyond various agrifood systems and modes of economies, while making the case that what emerges from this space of possibilities is an ethics, and politics, of care toward forest conservation.
Chapter
The sustainable development goals (SDGs) provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global challenges, including land degradation, poverty, climate change, and environmental degradation. Regenerative agriculture (RA) intersects with several SDGs, including zero hunger (Goal 2), climate action (Goal 13), life on land (Goal 15), and responsible consumption and production (Goal 12). It offers a promising pathway to a more equitable and sustainable future by promoting environmental sustainability, enhancing food security, and fostering socio-economic development. Various studies examine its role in meeting the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly focusing on its impact on mitigating climate change and conserving terrestrial and marine ecosystems. RA prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience, which in turn, helps mitigate climate impacts and improve food availability. Through systematized regenerative practices, communities can achieve these goals effectively and efficiently. Through case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, South-east Spain, and Western Kenya, RA demonstrates its efficacy in restoring soil health, mitigating erosion, and enhancing water infiltration, thereby contributing to achieving SDGs 14 and 15. Furthermore, it addresses the climate crisis by promoting soil carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Practices such as conservation tillage, agroforestry, and integration of forage crops exemplify effective strategies in mitigating climate impacts. RA aligns with SDGs 3, 8, and 17 by addressing contemporary health challenges, fostering economic growth, and promoting global partnerships for sustainable development. RA produces safer food and improves human health by reducing risks associated with soil pollution and chemical residues. Additionally, RA creates employment opportunities, particularly in rural areas, and promotes global partnerships through initiatives like carbon farming. Overall, regenerative agriculture offers a multifaceted approach to food production that improves human health, fosters economic growth, and promotes global sustainability, thus contributing significantly to achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Article
The integration of cover crops into cropping systems brings costs and benefits, both internal and external to the farm. Benefits include promoting pest‐suppression, soil and water quality, nutrient cycling efficiency, and cash crop productivity. Costs of adopting cover crops include increased direct costs, potentially reduced income if cover crops interfere with other attractive crops, slow soil warming, difficulties in predicting N mineralization, and production expenses. Cover crop benefits tend to be higher in irrigated systems. The literature is reviewed here along with Michigan farmer experience to evaluate promising cover crop species for four niches: Northern winter (USDA Hardiness Zones 5–6), Northern summer (Zones 5–6), Southern winter (Zones 7–8), and Southern summer (Zones 7–8). Warm season C 4 grasses are outstanding performers for summer niches (6–9 Mg ha ⁻¹ ), and rye ( Secale cereale L.) is the most promising for winter niches (0.8–6 Mg ha ⁻¹ ) across all hardiness zones reviewed. Legume–cereal mixtures such as sudangrass ( Sorghum sudanese L.)–cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L ) and wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–red clover ( Trifolium pretense L.) are the most effective means to produce substantial amounts (28 Mg ha ⁻¹ ) of mixed quality residues. Legume covers are slow growers and expensive to establish. At the same time, legumes fix N, produce high quality but limited amounts (0.5–4 Mg ha ⁻¹ ) of residues, and enhance beneficial insect habitat. Brassica species produce glucosinolate‐containing residues (2–6 Mg ha ⁻¹ ) and suppress plant‐parasitic nematodes and soil‐borne disease. Legume cover crops are the most reliable means to enhance cash crop yields compared with fallows or other cover crop species. However, farmer goals and circumstances must be considered. If soil pests are a major yield limiting factor in cash crop production, then use of brassica cover crops should be considered. Cereal cover crops produce the largest amount of biomass and should be considered when the goal is to rapidly build soil organic matter. Legume–cereal or brassica–cereal mixtures show promise over a wide range of niches.
Book
This new edition builds on the explosion of research on sustainable agriculture since the late 1980s. By separating myth from reality, Miguel Altieri extracts the key principles of sustainable agriculture and expounds on management systems that “really work.” Providing case studies of sustainable rural development in developing countries, he goes beyond a mere description of practices to include data that reveal the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of alternative projects. Each chapter of Agroecology has been enriched and updated with the latest research results from around the world. New emphasis has been placed on such issues as the ecological economics of agriculture, policy changes needed for promoting sustainable agriculture, rural development in the Third World, the role of biodiversity in agriculture, and new research methodologies.
Book
In the last 20 years, there has been a remarkable emergence of innovations and technological advances that are generating promising changes and opportunities for sustainable agriculture, yet at the same time the agricultural sector worldwide faces numerous daunting challenges. Not only is the agricultural sector expected to produce adequate food, fiber, and feed, and contribute to biofuels to meet the needs of a rising global population, it is expected to do so under increasingly scarce natural resources and climate change. Growing awareness of the unintended impacts associated with some agricultural production practices has led to heightened societal expectations for improved environmental, community, labor, and animal welfare standards in agriculture. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century assesses the scientific evidence for the strengths and weaknesses of different production, marketing, and policy approaches for improving and reducing the costs and unintended consequences of agricultural production. It discusses the principles underlying farming systems and practices that could improve the sustainability. It also explores how those lessons learned could be applied to agriculture in different regional and international settings, with an emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa. By focusing on a systems approach to improving the sustainability of U.S. agriculture, this book can have a profound impact on the development and implementation of sustainable farming systems. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century serves as a valuable resource for policy makers, farmers, experts in food production and agribusiness, and federal regulatory agencies. © 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Article
Depending on definition, as much as 90% of the terrestrial surface of the earth is estimated to be maintained in some sort of managed state, usually forestry or agriculture (Western and Pearl 1989). This very abundance should be sufficient to place managed ecosystems at the centre of the analysis of biodiversity and ecosystem function, and indeed a large literature has emerged on this topic in agricultural and forestry ecosystems (Pimentel et al. 1992; Paoletti et al. 1993; Collins and Qualset 1999). In this chapter, we first cast the major questions about biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the context of managed systems, introducing the ideas of planned versus associated biodiversity and the intensification gradient, concepts that are unique to managed systems.
Chapter
Agroforestry has been practiced in the United States since the 1930s in the form of windbreaks; however, science-based agroforestry research and practice gained attention only in the1970s. Even then, the progress of agroforestry and its acceptance by practitioners, farmers, and policy makers were hindered by the paucity of hard evidence to support the practice. The scientific foundation that has been laid, over the past decade in particular, has elevated agroforestry’s role as an integral component of a multifunctional working landscape in the United States. Recent trends in the agriculture sector necessitate farm diversification as an essential strategy for economic competitiveness in a global market. The realization that agroforestry systems are well suited for diversifying farm income while providing environmental services and ecosystem benefits has increased receptivity on the part of some landowners. Agroforestry systems offer great promise for the production of biomass for biofuel, specialty and organic crops, pasture-based dairy, and beef, among others. Agroforestry also offers proven strategies for carbon sequestration, soil enrichment, biodiversity conservation, and air and water quality improvement not only for the landowners or farmers but for society at large. The USDA Agroforestry Strategic Framework released in 2011 identifies agroforestry as an important component of a much-needed national strategy to “enhance America’s agricultural landscapes, watersheds, and rural communities.” Minor shifts in national agricultural policy can serve to catalyze the growth of agroforestry further. In an era of environmental sustainability and green business, the realization that agroforestry is an environmentally sound, ecologically sustainable, and economically viable alternative to traditional farming will propel its adoption to newer heights in the coming decades.
Article
Introduction This chapter discusses three types of rural landscape change in America: changes within agricultural production, losses to rural towns and conversion of agricultural land to other uses (Figure 10.1). It describes how federal agricultural policy directly affects rural landscape change, and it will characterise potentials for international trade agreements to affect agricultural policy and rural landscapes. Other federal policies and laws that affect American rural landscapes less obviously but equally profoundly are also discussed. Federal agricultural policy interacts with policy for energy, the environment, housing, transportation, taxes and trade, as well as with the American legal system for land-use controls, all of which propel rural landscape change. At the nexus of all these forces, individual farm operators are confronted with a bewildering array of entrepreneurial opportunities, technological possibilities and policy options from which to make decisions about their farms each year. Only by critically and imaginatively examining these influential policies can we anticipate and affect the future condition and sustainability of local rural landscapes in America. The chapter is in four main parts - first, landscape condition and trends in the Corn Belt are summarised; second, relevant US federal policies are discussed in relation to aims of the WTO; third, the relationship of Corn Belt agriculture to federal policies is briefly reviewed, and finally, the prospect of alternative futures is examined.