This document summarizes research on land use legacies in Great Plains grassland-cropland ecosystems. The researcher conducted interviews with stakeholders and soil analyses at sites with diverse land use histories to identify impacts on ecosystem structure and function. Results showed that indicators of soil stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity were still negatively impacted by past farming activities even 20 years after ceasing, though full recovery took approximately 60 years. Sites with a history of grazing farmland had similar or better ratings than solely farmed sites. The research concludes that maintaining some grassland, even in conjunction with crop production, can help support ecosystem functions and integrity over the long term.

1. Resource Conservation,
Land Use Legacies,
& Management Perspectives
in Great Plains Agroecosystems
Benjamin L. Turner, Ph.D.
With Dr. Roger Gates
July 2014

2. “Each soil has had its own history. Like a river, a
mountain, a forest, or any natural thing, its present
condition is due to the influences of many things and
events of the past.”
– Charles Kellogg, The Soils That Support Us, 1956

3. Land use legacy: The impact that previous land use
activities (i.e., legacy) have on ecosystem structure and
function after those activities have ceased, potentially
from years to centuries.
Conceptual basis: Adds explanatory power to
understanding current conditions for ecological science
(e.g., biogeochemical cycles; resilience) and
conservation planning (e.g., biodiversity).

4. This presentation is about identifying land use legacies in
Great Plains grassland‐cropland ecosystems.
Stakeholder engagement
Ecosystem assessment
Land use legacy
impacts/consequences
Managing resources for a
sustainable future

5. 100th Meridian – Sustainable or Not?

6. Grassland conversion in
the Great Plains

7. 1. Data Collection: Stakeholders and Soils
Understanding land use legacies requires reconnecting
ecosystem functions with previous human intentions.

8. Historical Data Collection
• Management interviews:
– One 1‐hour interview (management philosophy).
• Operation & family history.
• Goals, values, and land ethics.
• Personal value of ecosystem goods and services.
• Perspectives about grassland‐2‐farmland conversion.
– One site identification interview (hypothesis i.d.).
• What sites have diverse land use history and why?
– 10 questions per site (experiments and learning).
• Management tactics and observed performance.
…indigenous knowledge of those
with greatest connection to local
system..
…knowledge to aid in others’
understanding.

9. Stakeholder Engagement
100th Meridian
Four diversified ag operations:
• Nationally recognized seedstock operation.
• Environmental stewardship and grazing award winner.
• Neighboring family operations with an array of farm‐
management strategies.
Conservation minded
Valued diversity
Land ethic = integrity of ecosystem
Management by “mimicry”

10. Field Data Collection
• A soil “interview”:
– Results of management experiments.
– Interagency method.
– 17 Indicators of Rangeland Health.
• Soil stability.
• Hydrologic function.
• Biotic integrity.
– Soil Organic Matter.
• Rangelands…and Farmlands?
– Soil function vs. Farm decision support.
Available at: blm.gov/nstc/library/1734-6rev05.pdf

11. Soil Site Stability Hydrologic Function Biotic Integrity
Identifying Indicators of Ecosystem Health
The capacity of an area to limit
redistribution and loss of soil
resources (including
nutrients and organic matter) by
wind and water.
The capacity of an area to
capture, store, and safely release
water from rainfall,
run‐on, and snowmelt (where
relevant), to resist a reduction in
this capacity, and
to recover this capacity when a
reduction does occur.
The capacity of the biotic
community (plants, animals,
microorganisms, above and
below ground) to support
ecological processes within the
normal range of variability
expected for the site, to resist a
loss in the capacity to
support these processes, and to
recover this capacity when
losses do occur.
Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health,
version 4. Technical Reference 1734‐6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST‐00/001+1734/REV05. 122 pp.
* Capacity – Resiliency – Recovery *

12. Ecosystem Indicator Soil Site
Stability
Hydrologic
Function
Biotic
Integrity
1. Rills X X
2. Water flow patterns X X
3. Pedastals/Terracettes X X
4. Bare ground % X X
5. Gullies X X
6. Wind‐scour, blowout or deposition areas X
7. Litter movement X
8. Soil surface resistance to erosion X X X
9. Soil surface loss or degradation X X X
10. Plant community distribution relative to
infiltration
X
11. Compaction layer X X X
12. Functional/structural groups X
13. Plant mortality/decadence X
14. Litter amount X X
15. Annual production X
16. Invasive plants X
17. Reproductive capability of perennials X
The three indicators that cover all three
func ons → Soil
Highly dependent on previous land use.

13. Soil recovery
Aggregate formation
Water infiltration
Reconstructed land‐use legacies reveal interesting
dynamics of ecosystem functions over time.
Soil protection
Nutrient cycling
Biodiversity
2. Land‐use legacies: From General Trends to “Ghosts of the Past”

14. Cumulative indicator ratings show non‐abrupt transition
between farming and grassland ecosystem functions.
So what type of land has changed in use?
Trend (R2=0.6977)
No/conservation till
Various rotation types
Most sites have changed at least
once in my lifetime.
Low score = 3
Max score = 15

15. Land Capability Class: Moderate‐ to high‐
productivity land changed the most.
Do any “ghosts” continue to exert themselves?
Most sites were LCC < 4

16. “Ghosts of Farmland Past”
Increasing presence of farming/cultivation
Increasing departure from
capacity, resiliency, and recoveryFarm legacy impacts
were felt up to 20 yr.
Full recovery ≈60 yr.

17. “Ghosts of Grassland Past”
Increasing presence of grassland history.
Decreasing departure → Increasing
capacity, resiliency, and recovery.
Less clear trends than
“Farm Ghosts”
Better farming = better grasses?
‐ Grass “on the margin”
Grass legacy erased by farm
implementation?
Grass‐water legacy aiding in
smaller departure than BI (likely
in combination with better
tillage and crop diversity).
*SSS departure is same as
grassland sites (≈20 yrs).
Stability lost the longer
cultivation continued.
Positive soil legacies expressed.
• BI positive post‐20 years
with “margins”.
• HF likely due to better farm
practices.
Whether increasing or
decreasing, stability
reached ≈20 yr.

18. What about Grazed Farmland sites?
Grazed farmland necessitates grassland nearby, potentially linking
needed grain production with biodiversity conservation.
GFL rated the same or better than
farming on most similar ecological sites.
Departure of GFL came
from one location.

19. …and enhances opportunities
to meet global demands of
the future.
New research on Triple
Bottom Line returns of
coupled livestock‐cropping
systems should prove
valuable.
Image that supports
conclusion
Questions?
In summary, a little grass goes a long way for maintaining
ecosystem functions and integrity…