Targeting Environmental Priorities for Agriculture: Reforming Program Strategies (original) (raw)
Related papers
1995
OTA reached three major findings after conducting a comprehensive review of the evidence about U.S. agroenvironmental conditions (64): s Agriculture exerts broad, significant effects on the nation's water, wildlife, and soil resources. s Published data on agroenvironmental conditions are incomplete and not a federal priority. s Existing science and data suggest that agroenvironmental conditions are geographically diverse and particularly intense in some areas. TABLE 5: Soil Quality Priorities Priority Areas and Justification Links to Agriculture Area 1: Northern Mississippi Valley Loess and Sandy Outwash pI4m Severe water and wind erosion degrade soil. Agrichemical leaching to groundwater is a significant concern. Steep slopes, permeable soils, poor manure management, and intensive use of agrichemicals and irrigation raise the chance of groundwater degradation. Area 2: Southern Piedmont p Water erosion and soil compaction reduce productivity. Agrichemical leaching to shallow groundwater occurs. Steep slopes, concentration of row crops that do not protect soil, and cropping on marginal soils induce erosion and water quality problems. Area 3: Palouse and Columbia Plateau Imn Wind erosion creates fugitive dust in the air. Water erosion is associated with impaired surface water. Groundwater is also a concern. Steep slopes, intensive chemical (fertilizer) use, a fallow cropping sequence that removes ground cover, and cultivation on marginal soils are factors. Area 4: Iowa and Missouri Deep Loess p4 Water erosion leads to build up of sediment off-site. Poor surface and groundwater quality are also concerns. Steep slopes, silty soil, concentration of row crops, and intensive chemical inputs are primary causes of quality conditions. Area 5: Southern Mississippi Valley Silty Uplands I4 Water erosion leads to build-up of off-site sediment. Steep slopes, silty soils, and concentration of row crops influence conditions. Area 6: Iowa and Missouri Heavy Till Plains; Cherokee Prairie pI4 Soil productivity is degraded by water erosion and soil compaction. Sloping soils and concentration of row crops increase water erosion. Area 7: Northern and Central Glaciated Plains nI4 Wind erosion and off-site dust degrade air quality. Conservation of water in soils is a concern. Cereal-fallow cropping rotations expose soil to wind. Depletion of organic matter and cropping on marginal soils exacerbate quality problems. Area 8: Hawaii m Extreme water erosion results in surface degradation. Agrichemical leaching is also observed. Intensive cropping on steep slopes, including heavy tillage and harvesting equipment and intensive agrichemical use, created conditions of soil and water degradation. Heavy rainfall typical of the area exacerbates erosion. Area 9: High Plains m4on Conservation of water in soils is a concern. Dust from wind erosion degrades air quality. Lack of adequate crop residues, in part due to inclusion of a fallow rotation, exposes soil to erosion. Cropping on marginal soils and extensive cotton production in southern high plains increases soil degradation. Area 10: S. Indiana and IllinoisThin Loess p4 Soil productivity is reduced by water erosion and soil compaction. Surface and groundwater quality are also concerns.
Rethinking the vision for environmental research in US agriculture
2004
Environmental research in agriculture is today largely reactive, focused on problems at small scales and conducted within narrow disciplinary boundaries. This approach has worked to abate a number of environmental problems created by agriculture, but it has not provided effective solutions for many of the most recalcitrant ones. Furthermore, the approach fails to position agriculture to deliver new environmental benefits that the public and policymakers increasingly demand. A new vision is needed for environmental research in agriculture-one that is anticipatory; promotes long-term, systems-level research at multiple scales; better incorporates important interactions between the biophysical and social sciences; and provides for the proper evaluation of deployed solutions. Achieving this vision will require major changes in funding strategies, in institutional reward structures, and in policies that presently inhibit collaborations across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. It is, nevertheless, time to act.
The Environmental Stewardship Program: Lessons on creating long-term agri-environment schemes
Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia: Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem services on farms
The conservation of biodiversity on private land is both a high priority and a considerable challenge. An effective response to this challenge requires a combination of legislative and incentive mechanisms, coupled with preparedness by government to review and revise administrative arrangements. Preliminary results from the Environmental Stewardship Program, established by the Australian Government, highlight that there is a role for market-based approaches. However, implementation of this program through a Commonwealth bureaucracy was not without its challenges. Here we provide an overview of the program's implementation from 2007 to 2012, followed by discussion of some key lessons learned. We summarise these lessons as: • Designing for the long-term presents many challenges. • Land managers liked the program but there were a few surprises. This text is taken from Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia: Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem services on farms, edited by Dean Ansell, Fiona Gibson and David Salt, published 2016 by ANU Press,
Advancing the Sustainability of US Agriculture through Long-Term Research
Journal of Environment Quality
Agriculture in the United States must respond to escalating demands for productivity and efficiency, as well as pressures to improve its stewardship of natural resources. Growing global population and changing diets, combined with a greater societal awareness of agriculture's role in delivering ecosystem services beyond food, feed, fiber, and energy production, require a comprehensive perspective on where and how US agriculture can be sustainably intensified, that is, made more productive without exacerbating local and off-site environmental concerns. The USDA's Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network is composed of 18 locations distributed across the contiguous United States working together to integrate national and local agricultural priorities and advance the sustainable intensification of US agriculture. We explore here the concept of sustainable intensification as a framework for defining strategies to enhance production, environmental, and rural prosperity outcomes from agricultural systems. We also elucidate the diversity of factors that have shaped the past and present conditions of cropland, rangeland, and pastureland agroecosystems represented by the LTAR network and identify priorities for research in the areas of production, resource conservation and environmental quality, and rural prosperity. Ultimately, integrated long-term research on sustainable intensification at the national scale is critical to developing practices and programs that can anticipate and address challenges before they become crises.