Category: outreach

For the past four summers, Iowa State University’s College of Design Associate Professor Alex Braidwood has been teaching a field study class at Iowa Lakeside Lab Regents Resource Center called Acoustic Ecology. Lakeside Lab is a biological field research station in the northwest corner of Iowa founded in 1909 with the stated goal of providing a place for “the study of nature in nature.” This mission continues to this day. As part of this mission, the Acoustic Ecology course that Braidwood has developed brings together undergraduate and graduate students from the sciences and the arts each summer

to investigate the soundscape of Lakeside Lab and the surrounding areas. The region is dotted with prairie, wetland, and even woodland preserves where Braidwood both collects audio for his own work and exposes students to the process of nature sound recording during the two-week, two credit course.

The Acoustic Ecology class is a dynamic field study experience that involves a great deal of work in the field to put into practice the things that are discussed and demonstrated in the classroom. The course also involves a series of listening exercises to get everyone familiar and comfortable with the idea of active listening, a skill anyone can spend more time working on. The group moves through various exercises, some stationary and some mobile, to regain a level of focus on their ears and on listening – not just hearing, but listening. Hearing is the mechanical action performed by the ear and its subsequent parts. Listening, however, is much different. Listening involves the mind and has a level of intention to it that is not necessarily present in hearing. Listening is also a skill that can be improved upon.

These types of experiences provide an introduction into the lessons that will follow over the two-week class and are reinforced throughout the coursework. The class is part seminar, part field study, part technical demonstration, and part studio/lab. Students are shown early in the course a variety of audio recording techniques as well as taught how to use different sound recording devices and microphone configurations. The benefits of different recording systems and tactics are discussed, and students are given time to practice in the field as the class takes exploratory trips to various locations. The goal of the trips is also to determine sites and specific locations for capturing early morning recordings that begin pre-dawn and continue after sunset. This time of wildlife vocalization is referred to as the “dawn chorus” and is one of the more dynamic times for capturing an acoustic signature of a given place. After bringing the various field recordings back to the lab, the sounds are analyzed, processed, marked up, and observed. Students make observations about species diversity, uniqueness of the environment, impact of human sound, and anything else they find relevant for discussion.

In addition to recording techniques and equipment, the course covers a variety of professional audio editing and mastering techniques for the creation of audio pieces to be shared online. The end result is project-based and completed in the form of narrative audio pieces edited together to tell the story of what has been collected and observed. These audio pieces are in an audio format similar to popular edited podcasts such as RadioLab, 99 Percent Invisible, and This American Life.

Coming up on this incredible achievement moves one to reflect thoughtfully on the past and, as the ninth CEO of the Society, I am compelled to set a course for the future. With the world around us changing at an unprecedented pace, it is hard to predict what the Society and the conservation profession will look like in the next 75 years but I know it will include the Soil and Water Conservation Society as an inclusive and dexterous organization ready to respond to the needs of our members and our natural resources.

Towards this goal of inclusion, the Society started as, and remains today, one of very few interdisciplinary professional associations. As Hugh Hammond Bennett, founder of the Society and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, wrote seventy five years ago in the first edition of our Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, “For efficient forward movement of the national program of soil and water conservation…there will always be a need for well-trained specialists. There will always be a need for agronomists, geologists, engineers, foresters, botanists, hydrologists, and others…teachers, industrialists, students, doctors, union members, ministers, bankers, editors and farmers – people in every walk of life.”

Have you ever gone to the lake and been greeted by unwelcome, smelly scum? Algae are terrestrial and aquatic organisms that produce energy through photosynthesis. They are a primary food source for other organisms and produce oxygen during their photosynthetic process. Rapid growth of algae, called algal blooms, occurs naturally across aquatic landscapes. However, there is a group of bacteria called cyanobacteria that has similar photosynthetic characteristics and functions in aquatic systems. Cyanobacterial blooms, called harmful algal blooms (HABs), are capable of producing dangerous toxins.

HABs are increasing in frequency worldwide. Here in the Midwest, changing climate conditions and increased nutrient loss (particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural systems or municipal sewage wastes) feed these algal blooms, creating negative impacts for aquatic life, public health, recreation, and drinking water quality management.

The pressing threat of HABs has led to increased research activity across many governmental and non-governmental programs, including the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Water Resources Mission Area. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 created
a national network of Water Resources Research Institutes (WRRI), administered by USGS. In 2017, nine WRRIs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin aligned their research focus on HABs with the intent to gain, share, and synthesize knowledge on HABs in order to develop a regional product.

In 2018, with the support from the North Central Region Water Network (NCRWN), this regional coordination initiative led to the formation of a twelve-state team partnering WRRIs and Cooperative Extension to assess current HABs outreach and education efforts and establish uniform recommendations for the North Central Region. Cooperative Extension, also a part of the Land-Grant University System, is often on the front lines of communication research-based information to stakeholders. Using HABs as the focal issue, this team sought to inventory current WRRI-sponsored HABs research, inventory and identify gaps in Extension HABs publications and outreach efforts, and bring Extension and WRRIs together to assess programming needs.

After completing these inventories, the partnership identified five key topic areas in which to develop messaging for outreach materials:

• General HABs Knowledge. There is a need across the region to provide basic information on HABs. The products developed with this messaging are a “one-stop shop” for high-level HABs information. For states that are lacking in resources or public demand to provide more in-depth HABs information on specific topics, these products provide a base-level introduction to HABs.
• Identifying, Monitoring, and Treating HABs. Identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs are the logical next step for those in regions experiencing HABs. Those that see algal blooms will wonder if they are harmful algae or nuisance algae; water professionals and citizen groups like watershed coalitions and lake associations will be interested to know how they can control them. There are many resources that exist outside of Extension for identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs, particularly those offered by the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies (who typically house a monitoring program for HABs or beach closures). Extension products can provide information specific to identifying, monitoring, and treating HABs that then refer people to these additional resources.
• Human Health and HABs. Both humans and domestic animals can come into contact with HABs, either through drinking contaminated water, eating fish, or recreating in lakes and rivers. Ingesting toxins produced by some HABs can lead to neurological problems, including respiratory distress and convulsions (neurotoxins), and gastrointestinal illnesses, liver, and kidney diseases (hepatotoxins). Contact with the skin (dermatoxins) can cause rashes and skin irritation. In addition to these acute effects, the effects of chronic exposure to cyanotoxins are difficult to study and not well understood. Human health concerns may be a key entry point for raising concern among many populations and policymakers.
• Animal Health and HABs. In some states, like North Dakota and Missouri, the primary public concern regarding HABs resulted from pet and livestock deaths from drinking or coming into contact with algal toxins. While humans might attribute their symptoms to other common illnesses, animals that ingest toxins may suffer sudden death from acute toxicity, placing more importance on preventing animals from coming into contact with blooms.
• Landscape Nutrient Management Practices and HABs. Human-derived sources of nutrients are a primary contributor to the development of HABs in aquatic ecosystems. Agricultural, or non-point source systems, are inherently leaky systems, and their impacts on aquatic systems are increased by climate change. Forecasting how nutrients leave the landscape is a challenge because of the unpredictability of weather conditions. However, the use of nutrient management practices can minimize nutrient loss from agricultural systems and benefit farmers and those downstream. Nutrient management practices that address both nitrogen and phosphorus losses are a primary prevention strategy for HABs.

 

Partnership members self-selected into sub-groups to develop key messaging for each of three audiences: the general public (any person who might encounter HABs); the engaged citizen (individuals interested in taking action with HABs knowledge learned); and water professionals (those actively working in professions that may deal with the prevention, identification, treatment, or monitoring of HABs). Additionally, the team made recommendations for products to develop for use in Extension and outreach programming. For this list, as well as the comprehensive package of key messaging, please refer to the white paper available at https://northcentralwater.org/files/2019/11/HAB-11-22-2019. pdf.

This comprehensive and partnered approach to tackling one of the region’s most pressing water issues is a good start to building a culture of collaboration among the major players in water research and education. It is important to engage with the diverse breadth of interested parties: soil and water conservation district staff, agricultural and environmental engineers, local watershed groups, county conservation boards, municipal and county staff, farmers and ranchers, neighborhood associations, and citizen scientists, to name a few. Partnering to solve water resource issues in our states is the best path forward.

Melissa Miller

Former Associate Director for the Iowa Water Center

Getting into Soil and Water 2020

All agricultural cultures, including those of Indigenous peoples, depend on their relationship with soils to sustain their way of life. Soils are not only the foundation of human agriculture, but most Indigenous farming communities developed intimate knowledge of the relationships between plants, soils, and people based on generations of experience growing in a particular landscape. Even though many cultures grew crops on soil, they did not all have the same management practices. First, we will briefly explore traditional ecological knowledge of Indigenous peoples of North Americans with regards to soils. Second, we will explore how their traditional ecological knowledge might inform modern, mainstream agriculture.

Native American gardens were (and still are) interwoven deeply throughout the culture of each Native nation; stories and songs describe the crops being grown. The traditional ecological knowledge (see Box for definition) that Indigenous people developed through careful thought and observation of the natural world guided the way that each person utilized resources on the landscape when hunting, gathering, and farming (McGregor, 2004, Berkes et al., 2000). This knowledge is based through each generation, teaching young Native American gardeners to recognize the differences in cropping systems and which systems were most appropriate for a particular landscape.

Getting into Soil and Water 2020

Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for all life. Iowa farmers help ensure their crops have enough nitrogen by growing nitrogen-fixing plants, like soybeans, or by applying fertilizer and manure. Ideally, nitrogen is taken up by the crops and removed with harvest. Unfortunately, nitrogen is also lost to the environment, primarily to the air and water (Libra, Wolter, & Langel, 2004). When water moves through the soil it can take nitrogen with it, particularly in the form of nitrate (Jones, Nielsen, Schilling, & Weber, 2018). This process is called leaching, and it carries nitrate from soils to surface and ground waters. Excess nitrate in drinking water is unsafe for human consumption. In lakes, streams, and the Gulf of Mexico, too much nitrate contributes to algal blooms, which can suffocate fish and other animals when the algae decays. Nitrogen is also lost to the air through denitrification, where microbes respire nitrate instead of oxygen when oxygen is unavailable, such as periods when soils are saturated with water. Denitrification converts nitrate to three gases: nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, and dinitrogen gas. Iowa soils have been shown to produce little nitric oxide, so we will focus on nitrous oxide and dinitrogen gas (Hall, Reyes, Huang, & Homyak, 2018). Dinitrogen gas is harmless and makes up approximately 80% of the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide, on the other hand, is a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer. Regardless of the gas produced, denitrification in soils removes nitrogen that could have been utilized by crops.

At Iowa State University, our lab researches how to reduce nitrate leaching and denitrification to nitrous oxide gas. We are particularly interested in how topography plays a role in both processes. In north-central Iowa, the topography
of the Des Moines Lobe is dominated by former depressional wetlands, commonly referred to as potholes. Despite extensive attempts to drain potholes to prevent their flooding and allow crops to be cultivated, the potholes still flood in wet years and generally have higher soil moisture than the surrounding uplands (Logsdon, 2015). As water is required for leaching and is expected to promote denitrification by limiting oxygen availability, we wanted to investigate if potholes had higher rates of both.

To answer these questions, we installed lysimeters in a line from the center of
a pothole to the surrounding uplands (Figure 2). Each lysimeter diverted soil water as it flowed through the soil to a collection container (Figure 1). After each precipitation event, we measured the volume of water and the concentration of nitrate and other forms of nitrogen in the diverted water to quantify how much nitrogen was leached. Our results suggest higher rates of leaching in potholes than in the surrounding uplands (N. Lawrence, unpublished). Thanks to a grant from the Iowa Water Center, we were also able to quantify total denitrification across the pothole through a cutting-edge isotopic technique. Our results indicate that the potholes support only slightly higher rates of denitrification than the surrounding uplands. Collectively, these results suggest that potholes are a source of nitrate leaching to downstream ecosystems and are poorly effective at removing nitrogen through denitrification.

 

Future research will focus on strategies to reduce leaching and denitrification to nitrous oxide. Potholes could be targeted for alternative management to help achieve these goals. Perennial plants such as bioenergy crops may be able to reduce leaching by more effectively taking up nitrogen and water (McIsaac, David, & Mitchell, 2010). These crops could also reduce denitrification to nitrous oxide by similarly reducing the nitrate required for denitrification. We are currently investigating whether planting a perennial bioenergy crop will reduce leaching and denitrification to nitrous oxide.

Nate Lawrence

PhD Candidate Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University

 

References:

Hall, S. J., Reyes, L., Huang, W., & Homyak, P. M. (2018). Wet Spots as Hotspots: Moisture Responses of Nitric and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Poorly Drained Agricultural Soils. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 123(12), 3589–3602.

Jones, C. S., Nielsen, J. K., Schilling, K. E., & Weber, L. J. (2018). Iowa stream nitrate and the Gulf of Mexico. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0195930.

Libra, R., Wolter, C., & Langel, R. (2004). Nitrogen and phosphorus budgets for Iowa and Iowa watersheds. Technical Information Series.

Logsdon, S. D. (2015). Event- and Site-Specific Soil Wetting and Seasonal Change in Amount of Soil Water. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 79(3), 730–741.

McIsaac, G. F., David, M. B., & Mitchell, C. A. (2010).

Miscanthus and Switchgrass Production in Central Illinois: Impacts on Hydrology and Inorganic Nitrogen Leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(5), 1790–1799.

When one thinks about what a professional in the field of water science looks like, they might envision a biologist, chemist, or other scientist working in the laboratory or in the field. However, there are many other types of professionals besides those studying our water and working to improve its quality. Dr. David Keiser, a professor of economics at Iowa State University, focuses on the economics of water quality policies, and analyzes the effectiveness of current policies and how to improve them.

When he was younger, Dr. Keiser wasn’t initially sure of what his career path would be. He studied various topics as an undergraduate and decided to pursue a Master’s in applied economics at the University of Georgia after seeing the kind of work an economist does. There, he became intrigued about environmental economics, specifically water resource economics. After completing his Ph.D. at Yale University, he found his calling in academia.

The Perks of Buffers

Replacing farmland adjacent to streams with grasses or forests provides many benefits to agricultural ecosystems. Commonly referred to as riparian buffers, perennial vegetation planted along stream corridors improves wildlife habitat and reduces soil erosion and nutrient losses from overland water flow (Lee et al., 2000). Properly managed buffers have been shown to increase the quantity and diversity of bird species and pollinators, considered vital to agriculture sustainability (Bradbury et al., 2019). Buffered streambanks are also less susceptible to soil erosion, losing up to 80% less soil than row cropped or grazed stream banks (Schultz, 2004). Riparian buffers have also been shown to remove nitrogen from groundwater leaving agricultural fields. Microbes in the soil use the nitrogen as an energy source, converting nitrate to non-reactive nitrogen gas. The United States Department of Agriculture has acknowledged the multifunctional benefits of riparian buffers by promoting them as a part of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Over 1.2 million acres of farmland are currently enrolled in filter strip or riparian buffer CRP contracts, and Iowa leads the country with over 200,000 acres enrolled (FSA, 2019). Traditional riparian buffers play a key role in improving water quality in Iowa by reducing soil and nutrient losses from water moving across the land surface, but they are ineffective at removing the bulk of nitrogen lost from Iowa farmland that is routed to streams in subsurface tile drains.

Tile drains are commonly installed on poorly drained soil, lowering the water table to improve crop yields. Drainage water often contains elevated concentrations of soluble nutrients, including nitrate. The 17.4 million acres of drained land in the Midwest act as the largest source of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico, contributing to an annual Hypoxic Zone. Hypoxia is caused in the Gulf of Mexico from excess nitrogen and phosphorus contributing to algal blooms and the subsequent depletion of oxygen from algal decomposition. Each state in the Mississippi River Basin has implemented a nutrient reduction strategy to reduce the size of the Hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Iowa is one of the largest nutrient contributors to the Gulf and was the first state to implement a nutrient reduction strategy. Iowa’s strategy uses both in-field and edge-of- field conservation practices to reduce nutrient losses from Iowa. One of these edge-of-field practices redesigns traditional riparian buffers to also remove nitrogen from tile drainage. Referred to as saturated riparian buffers (SRBs), nitrate is removed from tile water by rerouting the water back into the buffer before it reaches the stream.

 

How Saturated Riparian Buffers Work

Saturated riparian buffers work by intercepting a tile drain as it leaves the field and crosses into a riparian buffer. Tile water is diverted into a distribution pipe where it then seeps through the buffer’s soil to the stream. To construct a SRB, a two chambered water control structure is placed at the field outlet. See Figure 1. The chambers are separated by flashboards set to a depth that raises the water table in the buffer without pushing water back into the field. Tile water leaves the field and enters the first chamber where it flows into one of two distribution outlets located on each side of the control structure. Distribution pipes are installed to a depth of around 2 feet and run parallel to the stream. The flashboards dividing the two chambers raises the water level in the control structure forcing water into the distribution pipes, where it then moves as shallow groundwater through the buffer. In cases of high flow from tile drains, the second chamber houses an overflow discharge pipe to prevent water backing up into the adjacent field. Once nitrate rich tile water becomes shallow groundwater in the riparian buffer, nitrate can be removed by microbes or plant uptake. Riparian buffers remove around 50% of the nitrate that leaves the field, or 134 lbs N per drained acre (Jaynes and Isenhart, 2018). Recent research has determined the majority of nitrate removed from SRBs is likely by microbes converting nitrate to non-reactive nitrogen gas in a process called denitrification (Groh et al., 2019). Saturated riparian buffers have shown early promise as a practice to remove nitrate from tile drainage and have been quickly integrated into the CRP program and the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. It will take a widespread implementation of SRBs alongside other conservation practices, including wetlands, cover crops, and woodchip bioreactors, to reach nutrient reduction strategy goals.

Morgan Davis, PhD

Postdoctoral Fellow Agronomy
Iowa State University

 

References:

Bradbury, S., Isenhart, T. M, and Schweitzer, D. 2019. Establishing and Managing Pollinator Habitat on Saturated Riparian Buffers. Iowa State Extension and Outreach. https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/Establishing-and-Managing-Pollinator-Habi- tat-on-Saturated-Riparian-Buffers.

FSA. 2019. Conservation Reserve Program monthly summary: November 2019. Farm Service Agency, USDA, Washington, DC. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ Assets/US- DA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/November2019Summary.pdf (accessed 4 Jan. 2020).

Groh, T. A., Davis, M. P., Isenhart, T. M., Jaynes, D. B., and Parkin, T. B. 2019 In situ denitrification in saturated riparian buffers. J. Environ. Qual. 48:376-84. doi:10.2134/ jeq2018.03.0125.

Jaynes, D. B. and Isenhart, T. M. 2018. Performance of saturated riparian buffers in Iowa, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 48:289–296. doi:10.2134/jeq2018.03.0115.

Lee, K. H., Isenhart, T. M., Schultz, R. C., and Mickelson, S. K. 2000. Multispecies riparian buffers trap sediment and nutrients during rainfall simulations. J. Environ. Qual. 29:1200–1205. doi:10.2134/ jeq2000.00472425002900040025x

The City of Dubuque’s Bee Branch Watershed is the area hit hardest by flash flooding during significant rain events. Frequently, several feet of water inundate homes destroying water heaters, furnaces, washers, dryers, and personal belongings. Disinvestment in the flood prone area resulted in declining property values. Equally as important, were the residual effects on its residents including poor health, negative neighborhood perceptions, stress, and a general feeling of helplessness against Mother Nature.

“Nobody would put any money into their homes, and you couldn’t blame them for the simple fact that the water would ruin everything,” said Cletus Cashman, 90-year-old lifelong Dubuque resident and participant of the Bee Branch Healthy Homes (BBHH) Resiliency Program.

In 1999, the City hired a consultant to study the nature of the flash flooding. The study, called the Drainage Basin Master Plan, determined that approximately 1,150 homes and businesses were at risk of flood damage. It also recommended major infrastructure projects to eliminate risk from flood damage. In 2003, the city began working on a multi-phased, watershed- wide approach to protect its residents.

Since then, millions have been invested to slow the rate of stormwater, reduce the amount of stormwater runoff, and safely channel stormwater through the city’s North End neighborhood. Several strategies have been used including retention basins, permeable pavement systems, storm sewer capacity improvements, and daylighting one-mile of the Bee Branch Creek and its associated floodplain.

Helping watershed residents living with residual issues from flooding was the city’s top priority when applying for Community Development Block Grant – National Disaster Resilience Competition (CDBG-NDR) funds in 2014 and 2015. The grant team made the strategic move to incorporate repairs and renovations to homes in addition to public infrastructure improvements.

The application was successful, and in 2016 the State of Iowa was awarded $96 million to make flood improvements in nine watersheds as part of the Iowa Watershed Approach including Dubuque’s Bee Branch Watershed. The City received $23 million for infrastructure improvements and $8.4 million for the Bee Branch Healthy Homes Resiliency Program.

Dubuque’s approach includes right sizing public infrastructure, repairing
and renovating homes to reduce water intrusion and address damage, and family advocacy support. This triangle represents a comprehensive plan to simultaneously improve neighborhood, structural, and social resilience. Knowing this innovative approach could serve as a replicable model for other communities, the city has captured data throughout the program.

To date, BBHH has helped 200 families address water intrusion and prepare for future rain events. On average, improvements range between $10,000 – $28,000 depending on project scope and property type. The program is available to owner-occupied homes, single-unit rentals, and multi-family residential units that are located in the eligibility area and meet income requirements established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Every participating household is required to visit with a BBHH advocate. They talk about any barriers or challenges the family is facing. These self-identified challenges are sorted into five categories: health, education, financial, social, and built environment. Classifying the challenges has helped evaluate gaps in services throughout the community. Disaggregating the data by subgroups such as race/ethnicity and tenant versus owner-occupied has been integral in understanding that subgroups experience different challenges and require different approaches in order to create positive outcomes.

 

There have been several lessons learned throughout the program. Property drainage is critical. This includes soil modifications and effective gutter and downspout systems. Keeping water away from the home is more important
than any other modification. Once inside the home, raising furnaces and water heaters off the floor as little as six to eight inches can save them from flood damage. Dehumidification with permanent high-power vent fans, sump pumps, and tuck pointing have been equally common modifications to create a drier and healthier home.

What happens upstream effects downstream. This is equally as true in urban watersheds as it is for our rural neighbors. This can be applied at all levels – from stormwater management in our streets to a home gutter system dumping water directly on an adjacent property. Part of being a good neighbor is looking at how your home impacts others. It also means checking on your neighbors during flash flood events to make sure they are safe. Hearing that neighbors are talking to each other because of the program is the greatest compliment the city can receive. Relationships among neighbors and structural improvements to both public and private infrastructure is creating greater neighborhood resilience, and the city couldn’t be more proud to tell that story.

 

Sharon Gaul

Grants Project Manager
City of Dubuque

Getting into Soil and Water 2020

of agricultural production in the Midwest has resulted in considerable soil erosion, substantially impaired water and air quality, and dramatically decreased wildlife and pollinator habitat. Fortunately, a large suite of conservation practices has been developed through years of cooperative research between universities and farmers to address these environmental concerns.

Such practices include things like cover crops, no-till farming, terraces, grassed waterways, prairie strips, diverse crop rotations, and stream buffers. While significant progress has been made over the past several decades, farmers on the whole have not yet voluntarily adopted these practices at a rate necessary to adequately balance agricultural production with natural resource sustainability throughout the Midwest. Understanding how and why farmers make decisions, including what factors influence the decision making process, is key for natural resource professionals to develop strategies for increasing the rate of farmer adoption of conservation practices.

Rural sociologists and other social scientists have been studying farmer behavior since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. One of the most important findings from this research has been that farmers are an incredibly diverse group of people with a wide array of beliefs, motivations, attitudes, values, and social norms that influence their behavior in very complex ways. This means that there is no singular strategy that natural resource professionals and policy makers are able to use to help encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices on their land. That being said, two recent projects led by researchers at Iowa State University and Purdue University analyzing decades of research studies have identified a number of factors that have most consistently been found to have an influence on adoption.

These meta-analysis research papers found that in general, farmers with larger farm sizes and income, farmers with higher levels of formal education, younger farmers, and those with farmland more vulnerable to erosion were more likely to adopt conservation practices. Additionally, farmers that identify with an environmental stewardship ethic, those who actively seek information about conservation practices, those who have previously adopted a practice, and those who have influential conservationist farmer leaders within their communities are more likely to adopt conservation practices.

Cost-share programs provided by state and federal agencies that help farmers pay for part of the cost of conservation practices have a positive influence on adoption. However, farmer awareness of these programs, as well as having positive attitudes about the programs themselves and the practices they pay for, are key to the amount of influence these programs have. Farmers who interact with natural resource professionals through conservation networks and programs are also more likely to adopt conservation practices. My own research has found a correlation between how often a farmer visits their local USDA office for conservation assistance and the likelihood that they will adopt certain conservation practices.

When considering the factors that influence farmers’ decisions, it is crucial to understand that farming is an enterprise that involves very high risks, and farmers often operate on extremely thin profit margins. The ISU and Purdue research teams identified several common barriers associated with risk that have a negative influence on adoption of conservation practices. The financial cost of practices, perceived reduction in crop yields, practice compatibility with existing farming practices, market fluctuations in crop prices, distrust of community or government agencies, neighbors’ lack of success with practices, complicated program application processes, and farmer uncertainty about potential practices can all decrease the likelihood that a farmer will adopt conservation practices.

Based on these findings, the authors of the two meta-studies also included several recommendations for natural resource professionals who work with farmers. Identifying and collaborating with farmer leaders in rural communities to facilitate conservation social norms through workshops and field days can be highly influential on other farmers. Increasing awareness by educating farmers about the benefits and potential risks, as well as how conservation practices can reduce risk, decreases uncertainty and can therefore increase adoption. Assisting farmers with cost- share programs helps offset financial risks, and accentuating other farmers’ positive experiences with adoption can be especially effective. Finally, one of the most important factors that influences farmers to adopt conservation is facilitating the development of long-term relationships and opportunities for knowledge transfer between natural resource professionals and farmers and between farmers themselves!

 

Chris Morris

Graduate Research Assistant Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Sociology, Iowa State University