Burger solutions to new challenges

1. Precision Conservation for Riparian Systems to Maintain Balance Between Soil, Water, and Wildlife Conservation and Agricultural Production Wes Burger Robert Kroger Mark McConnell Mississippi State University Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Forest and Wildlife Research Center

2. Forest Riparian Buffers SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

3. Conservation Benefits • Slow velocity of surface runoff • Filter surface runoff • Intercept sediment, nutrients, and pesticides in surface water. • Intercept and retain nutrients in shallow subsurface water flow. • Slows out‐of‐bank flood flows. • Roots of woody species increase the resistance of streambanks to erosion caused by high flows • Streambank stabilization • Woody vegetation lowers water temperatures by shading • Provides litter fall and large woody debris important to aquatic organisms • Herbaceous and woody vegetation in buffers provides food and cover for wildlife • Pollinator habitat • Increases landscape connectivity • Provides sustainable source of timber, wood fiber, and horticultural products. • Carbon sequestration SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

4. SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014 1999

9. Forest Riparian Buffer? SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

10. Riparian Forest Buffer NRCS Practice Standard 391 SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014 Trees • Strong, deep woody roots stabilize banks • Litter fall helps improve surface soil quality • Long‐lived, large nutrient sink needs infrequent harvest • Adds vertical structure for wildlife habitat • Vertical structure may inhibit buffer use by grassland birds • Shade stream, lowering temperature and stabilizing dissolved oxygen • Provide both fine organic matter and large woody debris to the channel • Can provide a wide variety of fiber products R. C. Schultz, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins and J. P. Colletti. 2004. Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems – lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa. Agroforestry Systems 61:35‐50.

11. Riparian Forest Buffer NRCS Practice Standard 391 SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014 Shrubs • Multiple stems act as a trap for flood debris • Provide woody roots for bank stabilization • Litter fall helps improve surface soil quality • Above ground nutrient sink needs occasional harvest • Adds vertical structure for wildlife habitat • Do not significantly shade the stream channel • Provide only fine organic matter input to stream • Can provide ornamental products and berries R. C. Schultz, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins and J. P. Colletti. 2004. Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems – lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa. Agroforestry Systems 61:35‐50.

12. Riparian Forest Buffer NRCS Practice Standard 391 SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014 Prairie grasses/forbs • Slow water entering the buffer • Trap sediment and associated chemicals • Add organic carbon to a range of soil depth • Added carbon improves soil structure • Improve infiltration capacity of the surface soil • Above ground nutrient sink needs annual harvest • Provide diverse wildlife habitat • Do not significantly shade the stream channel • Provide only fine organic matter input to stream • Can provide forage and other products R. C. Schultz, T.M. Isenhart, W.W. Simpkins and J. P. Colletti. 2004. Riparian forest buffers in agroecosystems – lessons learned from the Bear Creek Watershed, central Iowa. Agroforestry Systems 61:35‐50.

13. Forest Riparian Buffers SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

14. Buffer Efficacy – Water Quality SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014 • Appropriately zoned • Plant materials • Buffer width • Hillslope • Slope length • Erodibility • Field drainage • Geomorphology

15. Buffer Efficacy ‐ Wildlife • Species or guild‐specific • Appropriately zoned • Plant materials • Structural and floristic diversity • Width • Total area/% of landscape • Landscape context • Connectivity • Management practices SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

16. Conservation Buffers • Buffers are practical cost‐effective conservation practices • Provide multiple environmental benefits. • Well designed and strategically deployed conservation buffers produce environmental outcomes disproportionate to change in primary land use. • Potential placement of buffers within a field, watershed, or landscape is constrained by practice eligibility criteria. • Optimal buffer placement will vary in relation to the specific resource concern. SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

17.  Data  Remote sensing by aerial/satellite  Electronic soil moisture sensors  Irrigation meters  On the go sensors (e.g. green‐seeker)  Tissue tests  Grid soil sampling  Late spring N test  Annual soil test including organic matter  GPS‐based yield monitoring  Data Management Tools  GIS  GPS  Decisions  Nitrogen stabilizers  Variable‐rate nitrogen  Variable rate P&K  Variable‐rate seeding

18. Precision Conservation

19. Precision Conservation Water Quality • Critical source areas contribute a disproportionate amount of sediment and nutrient pollution • However, as little as 25% of conservation practices have been placed in critical areas (Osmond et al 2012). • Precision conservation tools including LIDAR derived terrain models, land use/land cover, BMP efficiencies and nutrient/sediment transport models have been used to identify optimal buffer locations (Dosskey et al 2011, Galzki et al 2011, Saleh et al 2011, Tomer et al 2013) SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

20. Precision Conservation Water Quality SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

21. Precision Conservation Wildlife Habitat • Habitat quality species or guild‐specific • Function of: – Usable space/Total habitat area – Patch size and configuration – Landscape context – Plant community – Connectivity • Multitude of habitat models for species/guilds/biodiversity exist • Based on theoretical or empirical species/habitat relationships SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

22. Precision Conservation Wildlife • Santelmann, M., K. Freemark, J. Sifneos, and D. White. 2006. Assessing effects of alternative agricultural practices onvwildlife habitat in Iowa, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113 (2006) 243–253 SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

23. Precision Conservation Wildlife • G. Bentrup and T. Kellerman. 2004. Where should buffers go? Modeling riparian habitat connectivity in northeast Kansas. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59:209‐216. SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

24. Precision Conservation Economics • Conservation adoption is a multidimensional, influenced predominantly by time management, profit, and yields (Osmond et al 2012). • Among a suite of practices presented to a group of surveyed producers, riparian buffers were the most disliked practice because they were seen as not providing farm revenue (Osmond et al 2012). SWCS Annual Meeting July 28, 2014

25. Motivations of Private Landowners • Producer Goals – (Kay, Edwards, and Duffy 2004) – Survive, stay in business, do not go broke, avoid disclosure – Maximize profits, get the best return on investment – Maximize or increase standard of living, attain a desirable family income – Increase equity, accumulate assets – Reduce debt, become free of debt – Avoid years of low profit, maintain stable income – Pass the entire farm on to the next generation – Increase leisure and free time – Increase farm size, expand, add acres – Maintain or improve the quality of soil, water and air resources

26. Opportunity Costs • Allocation of land to uses that protect or enhance environmental resources involves economic tradeoffs. • Producers incur the costs of conservation but may find it difficult to garner profits from these actions that benefit the larger society • Economic asymmetry in costs and benefits

27. Motivations of Private Landowners

28. Decision Support Tools • Functions: – Illustrate spatial eligibility of multiple conservation practices – Identify economic opportunities of conservation enrollment

29. Decision Support Tools • Illustrating Conservation Eligibility

30. Decision Support Tools • Identifying Economic Opportunities

31. Profitability Process • Create 6 attribute fields: Commodity Price, Gross Revenue, Government Payments, Total Revenue, Production Costs, Net Revenue • Assign and calculate values for each field: – Commodity Price = [ User Input ] – Gross Revenue = [ Commodity Price * Yield ] – Government Payments = [ User Input ] – Total Revenue = [ Gross Revenue + Government Payments ] – Production Costs = [ User Input ] – Net Revenue = [ Total Revenue – Production Costs ]

32. Compare Profitability of Buffer Scenarios vs. Ag. Production Alone

33. Decision Support Tools • Identifying Economic Opportunities $290.00 $300.00 $310.00 $320.00 $330.00 $340.00 $350.00 All Ag 9.1 meters 18.2 meters 27.4 meters 36.5 meters Profit/Hectare Buffer Width Economic Advantage of Conservation Buffers on Soybean Field in Mississippi

34. Picture of flooded property

35. Yield and Profit Surface of Production ‐ Average Yield = 60.54 bushels/ha ‐ Field Area = ~199 ha

36. ‐ Net Revenue = $177.47/ha

37. ‐ Net Revenue = $186.30/ha

38. Economic Breakdown Production Alone Production + CP 23 Economic Gain $177.47/ha $186.30/ha $8.83/ha

39. Conclusions • Conservation must be compatible with profitability • Landowners will enroll in conservation programs that address wildlife concerns provided financial incentives are adequate • Therefore it behooves managers and landowners to implement conservation buffers only when the economic returns outweigh that of traditional cropping > = $ $

40. Conclusions • Recent high commodity prices have impeded landowner willingness to enroll in conservation • Future conservation enrollment will likely occur on marginal farmland with reduced productivity • Precision agriculture technology identifies economic and conservation opportunities for informed decision making

41. Conclusions • Decision Support Tools provide the necessary tools needed to make informed land management decisions for water, wildlife, and economics

Burger solutions to new challenges

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Burger solutions to new challenges