1.4 Biodiversity Impacts of Fertilisers and Policy Responses in the United States - Shawn Carter. Biodiversity Workshop 25 October 2017

1. Shawn Carter
Senior Scientist
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
United States Geological Survey
Reston, VA
scarter@usgs.gov
Biodiversity Impacts of Fertilizers &
Policy Responses in the United
States

2. Overview
 Motivation
 Fertilizer Impacts on Biodiversity
 Pathways
 Challenges
 U.S. Policy Response
 Overview
 Evaluation: regional examples
 Co-benefits, Trade-offs, & Interactions
 Conclusions

3. Motivation
 OECD EPOC work plan
(2019-2020)
 Convention on Biological
Diversity: Aichi
Biodiversity Target 8
Photo Credit: Oregon Department of Agriculture
 Fertilizer use in agricultural systems:
 Benefits for food production
 Negative impacts on ecosystems & biodiversity

4. Biodiversity Impacts: Pathways
 Excess nutrients in surface water, groundwater, &
soils:
Direct toxicity
Habitat quality
Eutrophication
Acidification
Altered community composition
Diversity
Invasive species
Aquatic: Algal blooms Decreased O2 & light
Terrestrial: Acidic soils
Photo Credit: NASA

5. Biodiversity Impacts: Challenges
 50% applied N and P lost to the environment (MEA 2005)
 Endangered species negatively impacted by N
pollution (Hernandez et al, 2016)
 inorganic fertilizer use = biodiversity risk (Mozumder
and Berrens 2007)
Photo Credit: USFWS

6. U.S. Policy Responses
 Voluntary programs: USDA via the Farm Bill
 Working Lands Programs
 Environmental Policy Incentives Program & Conservation
Stewardship Program
• Plant cover crops
• Nutrient management
• Precision nutrient application
 Land Retirement Programs
 Conservation Reserve Program: rental payment
 Agricultural Conservation Easement Program: 30yr or permanent
easement
• Establish riparian buffer zones
• Restrict livestock access to
waterways
• Wetland restoration

7. Evaluation
 National Scale: little improvement
 Kg/ha fertilizer use increased 2002-2014 (OECD 2017)
 Regional: positive effects of targeted efforts
 Chesapeake Bay: 38% reduction in edge-of field N losses from
2003-2006 to 2012 (USDA NRCS 2013)
 CRP in upstate NY: 1,750 acre enrollment led to 1/3 decline in
P inputs to streams (Lamont 2005)
 Wetland restoration in Iowa: intercept 40%-60% incoming
nitrates (Crumpton 2005)

8. Co-benefits
 Human health:
 Reduced exposure to nutrient pollutant risks:
 cancer, reproductive problems, “baby blue” syndrome (Townsend et al.
2003)
 Cost-savings:
 Municipalities: save on water filtration/cleaning
 Estimated $13m over 2 years to treat algal blooms in Ohio; $70m
over 10 years in Texas (EPA, 2015)
 Agricultural producers: reduced input costs
& diversified income
 Estimated up to $7/ha savings in reduced
input costs* (Batte and Ehsani 2006)
 Wildlife:
 Land retirement = habitat
Photo Credit: Corine Bliek

9. Trade-offs
 Reduced agricultural production
 Land retirement resulting in lower production
 Modified practices resulting in lower yields*
 Economic depression
 Suppressed agricultural activity resulting in fewer jobs & lower
populations in rural areas*
 * Concerns are challenged by studies documenting
no or limited evidence of negative economic impacts
(Sullivan et al. 2004, Adair and James 2005)

10. Interactions
 Climate change:
 Agricultural sources of N have net warming effect (amplify
climate change) (Pinder et al. 2012)
 Drought: N accumulates in soils, resulting in large pulses after
precipitation
 Altered carbon & soil microbial dynamics -> altered
community composition & reduced species diversity
 Pesticides:
 Pesticides alter soil microbial community; altered abundance
of plant-available N
 Increased N application results in increased crop foliar
diseases; necessitates more pesticide application

11. Conclusions
 Moving Forward:
 Ecological Research: clarify links between fertilizer,
biodiversity & other stressors (climate & land use change)
o Socio-ecological & Economic
Research : Quantitative evaluation
of effectiveness of nutrient
management practices; evaluate
associated cost-benefit tradeoffs
o Improved Incentives: Given policy
landscape in the U.S. (voluntary
and/or state-based programs), what
innovations or improvements could
be made?
o Link to co-benefits?
Photo Credit: NASA

12. Works Cited
Adair, S., and B. James. 2005. The Conservation Reserve Program: Proven Benefits in the Prairie Pothole Region. The Conservation
Reserve Program–Planting for the future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 6–9, 2004. U.S Geological Survey
Batte, M. T., and M. R. Ehsani. 2006. The economics of precision guidance with auto-boom control for farmer-owned agricultural sprayers.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 53:28–44.
Crumpton, W. 2005. Water Quality Benefits of Wetland Restoration: A Performance-Based Approach. The Conservation Reserve Program–
Planting for the future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 6–9, 2004. U.S. Geological Survey.
Hernández, D. L., et al. 2016. Nitrogen Pollution Is Linked to US Listed Species Declines. BioScience 66:213–222.
Lamont, G. 2005. Protecting New York City’s Water Supply with the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The Conservation Reserve
Program–Planting for the future: Proceedings of a National Conference, Fort Collins, Colorado, June 6–9, 2004. U.S. Geological Survey.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Page Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for
assessment Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mozumder, P., and R. P. Berrens. 2007. Inorganic fertilizer use and biodiversity risk: An empirical investigation. Ecological Economics
62:538–543.
OECD. 2017. An overview of pesticide and fertilizer trends and policies across selected OECD countries (in press). Paris.
Pinder, R., et al. 2012. Climate change impacts of US reactive nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:7671–7675.
Sullivan, P., et al. 2004. The Conservation Reserve Program: Economic Implications for Rural America. Agricultural Economic Report
Number 834:112.
Townsend, A., et a. 2003. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:240–246.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. A Compilation of Cost Data Associated with the Impacts and Control of Nutrient Pollution.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Impacts of Conservation Adoption on Cultivated Acres of Cropland in the
Chesapeake Bay Region, 2003-06 to 2011.