IKCEST

Cropland expansion in the United States produces marginal yields at high costs to wildlife

Sep 9, 2020

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18045-z

It takes around min to read this article.

1.
USDA. 2012 National Resources Inventory: Summary Report. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf (2015).
2.
U.S. EPA. Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress. 159 (2018).
3.
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947 (2008).
4.
Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S. & Foley, J. A. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034015 (2013).
ADS Google Scholar
5.
Spawn, S. A., Lark, T. J. & Gibbs, H. K. Carbon emissions from cropland expansion in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 045009 (2019).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
6.
Yu, Z., Lu, C., Tian, H. & Canadell, J. G. Largely underestimated carbon emission from land use and land cover change in the conterminous US. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3741–3752 (2019).
7.
West, P. C. et al. Trading carbon for food: Global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19645–19648 (2010).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8.
Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J. & Polasky, S. Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12342–12347 (2014).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
9.
Lark, T. J., Salmon, J. M. & Gibbs, H. K. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 044003 (2015).
ADS Google Scholar
10.
Henwood, W. D. & TOWARD, A. Strategy for the conservation and protection of the world’s temperate grasslands. Gt. Plains Res. 20, 121–134 (2010).
Google Scholar
11.
Tollefson, J. One million species face extinction. Nature 569, 171 (2019).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
12.
Díaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_unedited_advance_for_posting_htn.pdf Advance Unedited Version (2019).
13.
Werling, B. P. et al. Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1652–1657 (2014).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
14.
Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15.
Meehan, T. D., Hurlbert, A. H. & Gratton, C. Bird communities in future bioenergy landscapes of the Upper Midwest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18533–18538 (2010).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
16.
Thogmartin, W. E. et al. Restoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern US: ‘all hands on deck’. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074005 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
17.
Smith, G. W. A Critical Review of the Aerial and Ground Surveys of Breeding Waterfowl in North America. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA322667 (1995).
18.
Bakker, K. K. & Higgins, K. F. Planted grasslands and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for grassland birds? West. North Am. Nat. 69, 235–242 (2009).
Google Scholar
19.
Dodds, W. K. et al. Comparing ecosystem goods and services provided by restored and native lands. BioScience 58, 837–845 (2008).
Google Scholar
20.
Lark, T. J., Larson, B., Schelly, I., Batish, S. & Gibbs, H. K. Accelerated conversion of native prairie to cropland in Minnesota. Environ. Conserv. 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892918000437 (2019).
21.
Wimberly, M. C. et al. Cropland expansion and grassland loss in the eastern Dakotas: New insights from a farm-level survey. Land Use Policy 63, 160–173 (2017).
Google Scholar
22.
Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R. & Craig, M. Monitoring US agriculture: the US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer Program. Geocarto Int. 26, 341–358 (2011).
Google Scholar
23.
Caro, T. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species (Island Press, 2010).
24.
Yu, Z. & Lu, C. Historical cropland expansion and abandonment in the continental U.S. during 1850 to 2016. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 322–333 (2018).
MathSciNet Google Scholar
25.
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Sci. Data 5, 170191 (2018).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
26.
Haan, N. L. & Landis, D. A. The importance of shifting disturbance regimes in monarch butterfly decline and recovery. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 191 (2019).
27.
Lukens, L. et al. Monarch habitat in conservation grasslands. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 13 (2020).
28.
Reynolds, R. E., Shaffer, T. L., Loesch, C. R. & Cox, R. R. The farm bill and duck production in the prairie pothole region: increasing the benefits. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 963–974 (2006).
Google Scholar
29.
Walker, J. et al. An integrated strategy for grassland easement acquisition in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA. J. Fish. Wildl. Manag. 4, 267–279 (2013).
Google Scholar
30.
USDA, N. 2017 Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php#full_report (2019).
31.
USDA. 2015 National Resources Inventory: Summary Report. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf (2018).
32.
Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 146, 108–123 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
33.
Estel, S. et al. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 312–325 (2015).
ADS Google Scholar
34.
Yin, H. et al. Mapping agricultural land abandonment from spatial and temporal segmentation of Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 210, 12–24 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
35.
Yin, H. et al. Monitoring cropland abandonment with Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 246, 111873 (2020).
ADS Google Scholar
36.
Anderson, J. R. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976).
37.
Rogan, J. et al. Land-cover change monitoring with classification trees using landsat TM and ancillary data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sensing 69, 793–804 (2003).
38.
Johnson, D. M. An assessment of pre- and within-season remotely sensed variables for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 141, 116–128 (2014).
ADS Google Scholar
39.
Kukal, M. S. & Irmak, S. U.S. agro-climate in 20th century: growing degree days, first and last frost, growing season length, and impacts on crop yields. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
40.
Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A., Norman, J. & McSweeney, K. The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11, 377–392 (2002).
Google Scholar
41.
Lubowski, R. N. et al. Environmental Effects of Agricultural Land-use Change: The Role of Economics and Policy https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.33591 (2006).
42.
Hendricks, N. P. & Er, E. Changes in cropland area in the United States and the role of CRP. Food Policy 75, 15–23 (2018).
Google Scholar
43.
Alonso, W. Location and land use. Toward a general theory of land rent. Locat. Land Use Gen. Theory Land Rent 204 (1964).
44.
Wimberly, M. C., Narem, D. M., Bauman, P. J., Carlson, B. T. & Ahlering, M. A. Grassland connectivity in fragmented agricultural landscapes of the north-central United States. Biol. Conserv. 217, 121–130 (2018).
Google Scholar
45.
Bennett, A. F. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation (Iucn, 1999).
46.
Helms, D. Readings in the History of the Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Read. Hist. Soil Conserv. Serv. 60–73 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/about/history/?cid=nrcs143_021436 (1992).
47.
Abubakar, M. S., Ahmad, D. & Akande, F. B. A review of farm tractor overturning accidents and safety. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 18, 377–385 (2010).
Google Scholar
48.
Xie, Y., Lark, T. J., Brown, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping irrigated cropland extent across the conterminous United States at 30 m resolution using a semi-automatic training approach on Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 155, 136–149 (2019).
ADS Google Scholar
49.
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
50.
Oberhauser, K. & Guiney, M. Insects as flagship conservation species. Terr. Arthropod. Rev. 1, 111–123 (2009).
Google Scholar
51.
Gustafsson, K. M., Agrawal, A. A., Lewenstein, B. V. & Wolf, S. A. The monarch butterfly through time and space: the social construction of an icon. BioScience 65, 612–622 (2015).
Google Scholar
52.
Pleasants, J. Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery: estimates of milkweeds lost, milkweeds remaining and milkweeds that must be added to increase the monarch population. Insect Conserv. Divers. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12198 (2016).
53.
Thogmartin, W. E. et al. Monarch butterfly population decline in North America: identifying the threatening processes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170760 (2017).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
54.
Stenoien, C. et al. Monarchs in decline: a collateral landscape-level effect of modern agriculture. Insect Sci. 25, 528–541 (2018).
PubMed Google Scholar
55.
Lipsey, M. K. et al. One step ahead of the plow: Using cropland conversion risk to guide Sprague’s Pipit conservation in the northern Great Plains. Biol. Conserv. 191, 739–749 (2015).
Google Scholar
56.
Runge, C. A. et al. Unintended habitat loss on private land from grazing restrictions on public rangelands. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 52–62 (2019).
57.
Sylvester, K. M., Gutmann, M. P. & Brown, D. G. At the margins: agriculture, subsidies and the shifting fate of North America’s native grassland. Popul. Environ. 37, 362–390 (2016).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
58.
Claassen, R., Wade, T., Breneman, V., Williams, R. & Loesch, C. Preserving native grassland: Can Sodsaver reduce cropland conversion? J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 67A–73A (2018).
Google Scholar
59.
Lark, T. J. Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands. Land Use Policy 97, 104727 (2020).
Google Scholar
60.
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).
PubMed Google Scholar
61.
Yesson, C. et al. How global is the global biodiversity information facility? PLoS ONE 2, e1124 (2007).
62.
Hertel, T. W. The global supply and demand for agricultural land in 2050: a perfect storm in the making? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 259–275 (2011).
Google Scholar
63.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global Food Demand and the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
64.
Babcock, B. A. Extensive and intensive agricultural supply response. Annu Rev. Resour. Econ. 7, 333–348 (2015).
Google Scholar
65.
Zhao, X., Van Der Mensbrugghe, D. & Tyner, W. E., Modeling land physically in CGE models: new insights on intensive and extensive margins, 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258363, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.258363 (2017).
66.
Barr, K. J., Babcock, B. A., Carriquiry, M. A., Nassar, A. M. & Harfuch, L. Agricultural Land Elasticities in the United States and Brazil. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33, 449–462 (2011).
Google Scholar
67.
Molotoks, A. et al. Global projections of future cropland expansion to 2050 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5895–5908 (2018).
Google Scholar
68.
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W. & Gerten, D. Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4303–4317 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
69.
Zabel, F. et al. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
70.
Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).
71.
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
PubMed Google Scholar
72.
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
73.
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
74.
Mourad, M. Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 461–477 (2016).
Google Scholar
75.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3065–3081 (2010).
Google Scholar
76.
Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3804–3809 (2018).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
77.
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G. & Field, C. B. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 179 (2009).
Google Scholar
78.
Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
79.
Howell, T. A. Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agron. J. 93, 281–289 (2001).
Google Scholar
80.
Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–59 (2015).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
81.
Kladivko, E. J. et al. Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: Potential adoption and reduction of nitrate leaching in the Mississippi River Basin. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 279–291 (2014).
Google Scholar
82.
Basche, A. D. & DeLonge, M. S. Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14, e0215702 (2019).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
83.
Chandrasoma, J. M., Christianson, R. D. & Christianson, L. E. Saturated buffers: What is their potential impact across the US Midwest? Agric. Environ. Lett. 4, https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2018.11.0059 (2019).
84.
Schulte, L. A. et al. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11247–11252 (2017).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
85.
Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257 (2019).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
86.
Basso, B., Shuai, G., Zhang, J. & Robertson, G. P. Yield stability analysis reveals sources of large-scale nitrogen loss from the US Midwest. Sci. Rep. 9, 5774 (2019).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
87.
Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
88.
LaCanne, C. E. & Lundgren, J. G. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428 (2018).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
89.
Lark, T. J., Mueller, R. M., Johnson, D. M. & Gibbs, H. K. Measuring land-use and land-cover change using the U.S. department of agriculture’s cropland data layer: Cautions and recommendations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 62, 224–235 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
90.
Lark, T. J. America’s Food- and Fuel-Scapes: Quantifying Agricultural Land-Use Change Across the United States (The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2017).
91.
Homer, C. et al. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 345–354 (2015).
Google Scholar
92.
Kim, K. E. Adaptive majority filtering for contextual classification of remote sensing data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 17, 1083–1087 (1996).
ADS Google Scholar
93.
Tobler, W. R. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. 46, 234–240 (1970).
Google Scholar
94.
Miller, H. J. Tobler’s first law and spatial analysis. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 284–289 (2004).
Google Scholar
95.
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn 45, 5–32 (2001).
MATH Google Scholar
96.
Jeong, J. H. et al. Random forests for global and regional crop yield predictions. PLoS ONE 11, e0156571 (2016).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
97.
USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Guide to NASS Surveys http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/index.php. (2020).
98.
Soil Survey Staff, N. R. C. S., United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for the United States. (2018).
99.
Gesch, D. et al. The national elevation dataset. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 68, 5–32 (2002).
Google Scholar
100.
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
101.
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017).
102.
Hydric Soils—Introduction | NRCS Soils. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 (2020).
103.
Cowardin, L. M., Shaffer, T. L. & Arnold, P. M. Evaluations of Duck Habitat and Estimation of Duck Population Sizes with a Remote-Sensing-Based System. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA322572 (1995).
104.
Jin, S. et al. Overall methodology design for the United States national land cover database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 11, 2971 (2019).
ADS Google Scholar

Original Text (This is the original text for your reference.)

1.
USDA. 2012 National Resources Inventory: Summary Report. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf (2015).
2.
U.S. EPA. Biofuels and the Environment: The Second Triennial Report to Congress. 159 (2018).
3.
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947 (2008).
4.
Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S. & Foley, J. A. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034015 (2013).
ADS Google Scholar
5.
Spawn, S. A., Lark, T. J. & Gibbs, H. K. Carbon emissions from cropland expansion in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 045009 (2019).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
6.
Yu, Z., Lu, C., Tian, H. & Canadell, J. G. Largely underestimated carbon emission from land use and land cover change in the conterminous US. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3741–3752 (2019).
7.
West, P. C. et al. Trading carbon for food: Global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19645–19648 (2010).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8.
Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J. & Polasky, S. Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12342–12347 (2014).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
9.
Lark, T. J., Salmon, J. M. & Gibbs, H. K. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 044003 (2015).
ADS Google Scholar
10.
Henwood, W. D. & TOWARD, A. Strategy for the conservation and protection of the world’s temperate grasslands. Gt. Plains Res. 20, 121–134 (2010).
Google Scholar
11.
Tollefson, J. One million species face extinction. Nature 569, 171 (2019).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
12.
Díaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_unedited_advance_for_posting_htn.pdf Advance Unedited Version (2019).
13.
Werling, B. P. et al. Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 1652–1657 (2014).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
14.
Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15.
Meehan, T. D., Hurlbert, A. H. & Gratton, C. Bird communities in future bioenergy landscapes of the Upper Midwest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18533–18538 (2010).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
16.
Thogmartin, W. E. et al. Restoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern US: ‘all hands on deck’. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 074005 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
17.
Smith, G. W. A Critical Review of the Aerial and Ground Surveys of Breeding Waterfowl in North America. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA322667 (1995).
18.
Bakker, K. K. & Higgins, K. F. Planted grasslands and native sod prairie: equivalent habitat for grassland birds? West. North Am. Nat. 69, 235–242 (2009).
Google Scholar
19.
Dodds, W. K. et al. Comparing ecosystem goods and services provided by restored and native lands. BioScience 58, 837–845 (2008).
Google Scholar
20.
Lark, T. J., Larson, B., Schelly, I., Batish, S. & Gibbs, H. K. Accelerated conversion of native prairie to cropland in Minnesota. Environ. Conserv. 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892918000437 (2019).
21.
Wimberly, M. C. et al. Cropland expansion and grassland loss in the eastern Dakotas: New insights from a farm-level survey. Land Use Policy 63, 160–173 (2017).
Google Scholar
22.
Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R. & Craig, M. Monitoring US agriculture: the US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cropland Data Layer Program. Geocarto Int. 26, 341–358 (2011).
Google Scholar
23.
Caro, T. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species (Island Press, 2010).
24.
Yu, Z. & Lu, C. Historical cropland expansion and abandonment in the continental U.S. during 1850 to 2016. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 322–333 (2018).
MathSciNet Google Scholar
25.
Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A. & Hegewisch, K. C. TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Sci. Data 5, 170191 (2018).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
26.
Haan, N. L. & Landis, D. A. The importance of shifting disturbance regimes in monarch butterfly decline and recovery. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 191 (2019).
27.
Lukens, L. et al. Monarch habitat in conservation grasslands. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 13 (2020).
28.
Reynolds, R. E., Shaffer, T. L., Loesch, C. R. & Cox, R. R. The farm bill and duck production in the prairie pothole region: increasing the benefits. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 963–974 (2006).
Google Scholar
29.
Walker, J. et al. An integrated strategy for grassland easement acquisition in the Prairie Pothole Region, USA. J. Fish. Wildl. Manag. 4, 267–279 (2013).
Google Scholar
30.
USDA, N. 2017 Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php#full_report (2019).
31.
USDA. 2015 National Resources Inventory: Summary Report. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd396218.pdf (2018).
32.
Yang, L. et al. A new generation of the United States National Land Cover Database: Requirements, research priorities, design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 146, 108–123 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
33.
Estel, S. et al. Mapping farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 312–325 (2015).
ADS Google Scholar
34.
Yin, H. et al. Mapping agricultural land abandonment from spatial and temporal segmentation of Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 210, 12–24 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
35.
Yin, H. et al. Monitoring cropland abandonment with Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 246, 111873 (2020).
ADS Google Scholar
36.
Anderson, J. R. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976).
37.
Rogan, J. et al. Land-cover change monitoring with classification trees using landsat TM and ancillary data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sensing 69, 793–804 (2003).
38.
Johnson, D. M. An assessment of pre- and within-season remotely sensed variables for forecasting corn and soybean yields in the United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 141, 116–128 (2014).
ADS Google Scholar
39.
Kukal, M. S. & Irmak, S. U.S. agro-climate in 20th century: growing degree days, first and last frost, growing season length, and impacts on crop yields. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).
ADS Google Scholar
40.
Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A., Norman, J. & McSweeney, K. The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11, 377–392 (2002).
Google Scholar
41.
Lubowski, R. N. et al. Environmental Effects of Agricultural Land-use Change: The Role of Economics and Policy https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.33591 (2006).
42.
Hendricks, N. P. & Er, E. Changes in cropland area in the United States and the role of CRP. Food Policy 75, 15–23 (2018).
Google Scholar
43.
Alonso, W. Location and land use. Toward a general theory of land rent. Locat. Land Use Gen. Theory Land Rent 204 (1964).
44.
Wimberly, M. C., Narem, D. M., Bauman, P. J., Carlson, B. T. & Ahlering, M. A. Grassland connectivity in fragmented agricultural landscapes of the north-central United States. Biol. Conserv. 217, 121–130 (2018).
Google Scholar
45.
Bennett, A. F. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation (Iucn, 1999).
46.
Helms, D. Readings in the History of the Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Read. Hist. Soil Conserv. Serv. 60–73 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/about/history/?cid=nrcs143_021436 (1992).
47.
Abubakar, M. S., Ahmad, D. & Akande, F. B. A review of farm tractor overturning accidents and safety. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 18, 377–385 (2010).
Google Scholar
48.
Xie, Y., Lark, T. J., Brown, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping irrigated cropland extent across the conterminous United States at 30 m resolution using a semi-automatic training approach on Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 155, 136–149 (2019).
ADS Google Scholar
49.
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
50.
Oberhauser, K. & Guiney, M. Insects as flagship conservation species. Terr. Arthropod. Rev. 1, 111–123 (2009).
Google Scholar
51.
Gustafsson, K. M., Agrawal, A. A., Lewenstein, B. V. & Wolf, S. A. The monarch butterfly through time and space: the social construction of an icon. BioScience 65, 612–622 (2015).
Google Scholar
52.
Pleasants, J. Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery: estimates of milkweeds lost, milkweeds remaining and milkweeds that must be added to increase the monarch population. Insect Conserv. Divers. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12198 (2016).
53.
Thogmartin, W. E. et al. Monarch butterfly population decline in North America: identifying the threatening processes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170760 (2017).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
54.
Stenoien, C. et al. Monarchs in decline: a collateral landscape-level effect of modern agriculture. Insect Sci. 25, 528–541 (2018).
PubMed Google Scholar
55.
Lipsey, M. K. et al. One step ahead of the plow: Using cropland conversion risk to guide Sprague’s Pipit conservation in the northern Great Plains. Biol. Conserv. 191, 739–749 (2015).
Google Scholar
56.
Runge, C. A. et al. Unintended habitat loss on private land from grazing restrictions on public rangelands. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 52–62 (2019).
57.
Sylvester, K. M., Gutmann, M. P. & Brown, D. G. At the margins: agriculture, subsidies and the shifting fate of North America’s native grassland. Popul. Environ. 37, 362–390 (2016).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
58.
Claassen, R., Wade, T., Breneman, V., Williams, R. & Loesch, C. Preserving native grassland: Can Sodsaver reduce cropland conversion? J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 67A–73A (2018).
Google Scholar
59.
Lark, T. J. Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands. Land Use Policy 97, 104727 (2020).
Google Scholar
60.
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).
PubMed Google Scholar
61.
Yesson, C. et al. How global is the global biodiversity information facility? PLoS ONE 2, e1124 (2007).
62.
Hertel, T. W. The global supply and demand for agricultural land in 2050: a perfect storm in the making? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93, 259–275 (2011).
Google Scholar
63.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global Food Demand and the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
64.
Babcock, B. A. Extensive and intensive agricultural supply response. Annu Rev. Resour. Econ. 7, 333–348 (2015).
Google Scholar
65.
Zhao, X., Van Der Mensbrugghe, D. & Tyner, W. E., Modeling land physically in CGE models: new insights on intensive and extensive margins, 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258363, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.258363 (2017).
66.
Barr, K. J., Babcock, B. A., Carriquiry, M. A., Nassar, A. M. & Harfuch, L. Agricultural Land Elasticities in the United States and Brazil. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 33, 449–462 (2011).
Google Scholar
67.
Molotoks, A. et al. Global projections of future cropland expansion to 2050 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5895–5908 (2018).
Google Scholar
68.
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W. & Gerten, D. Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4303–4317 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
69.
Zabel, F. et al. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
70.
Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).
71.
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).
PubMed Google Scholar
72.
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
73.
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
74.
Mourad, M. Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 126, 461–477 (2016).
Google Scholar
75.
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3065–3081 (2010).
Google Scholar
76.
Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3804–3809 (2018).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
77.
Lobell, D. B., Cassman, K. G. & Field, C. B. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 179 (2009).
Google Scholar
78.
Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257 (2012).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
79.
Howell, T. A. Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agron. J. 93, 281–289 (2001).
Google Scholar
80.
Zhang, X. et al. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528, 51–59 (2015).
ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
81.
Kladivko, E. J. et al. Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: Potential adoption and reduction of nitrate leaching in the Mississippi River Basin. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 279–291 (2014).
Google Scholar
82.
Basche, A. D. & DeLonge, M. S. Comparing infiltration rates in soils managed with conventional and alternative farming methods: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14, e0215702 (2019).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
83.
Chandrasoma, J. M., Christianson, R. D. & Christianson, L. E. Saturated buffers: What is their potential impact across the US Midwest? Agric. Environ. Lett. 4, https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2018.11.0059 (2019).
84.
Schulte, L. A. et al. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11247–11252 (2017).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
85.
Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257 (2019).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
86.
Basso, B., Shuai, G., Zhang, J. & Robertson, G. P. Yield stability analysis reveals sources of large-scale nitrogen loss from the US Midwest. Sci. Rep. 9, 5774 (2019).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
87.
Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
88.
LaCanne, C. E. & Lundgren, J. G. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428 (2018).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
89.
Lark, T. J., Mueller, R. M., Johnson, D. M. & Gibbs, H. K. Measuring land-use and land-cover change using the U.S. department of agriculture’s cropland data layer: Cautions and recommendations. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 62, 224–235 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
90.
Lark, T. J. America’s Food- and Fuel-Scapes: Quantifying Agricultural Land-Use Change Across the United States (The University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2017).
91.
Homer, C. et al. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 345–354 (2015).
Google Scholar
92.
Kim, K. E. Adaptive majority filtering for contextual classification of remote sensing data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 17, 1083–1087 (1996).
ADS Google Scholar
93.
Tobler, W. R. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr. 46, 234–240 (1970).
Google Scholar
94.
Miller, H. J. Tobler’s first law and spatial analysis. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 94, 284–289 (2004).
Google Scholar
95.
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn 45, 5–32 (2001).
MATH Google Scholar
96.
Jeong, J. H. et al. Random forests for global and regional crop yield predictions. PLoS ONE 11, e0156571 (2016).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
97.
USDA - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Guide to NASS Surveys http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/index.php. (2020).
98.
Soil Survey Staff, N. R. C. S., United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for the United States. (2018).
99.
Gesch, D. et al. The national elevation dataset. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 68, 5–32 (2002).
Google Scholar
100.
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).
ADS Google Scholar
101.
Team, R. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017).
102.
Hydric Soils—Introduction | NRCS Soils. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 (2020).
103.
Cowardin, L. M., Shaffer, T. L. & Arnold, P. M. Evaluations of Duck Habitat and Estimation of Duck Population Sizes with a Remote-Sensing-Based System. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA322572 (1995).
104.
Jin, S. et al. Overall methodology design for the United States national land cover database 2016 products. Remote Sens. 11, 2971 (2019).
ADS Google Scholar

Comments

Something to say?

Log in or Sign up for free

Disclaimer: The translated content is provided by third-party translation service providers, and IKCEST shall not assume any responsibility for the accuracy and legality of the content.

Translate engine

Article's language

English

中文

Pусск

Français

Español

العربية

Português

Kikongo

Dutch

kiswahili

هَوُسَ

IsiZulu

Action

Share

Related

Report

Select your report category*

Reason*

By pressing send, your feedback will be used to improve IKCEST. Your privacy will be protected.

Submit

Cancel

ICP备案号:京ICP备14021735号-1 © 2008 - 2023 IKCEST All rights reserved | Sitemap | Contact | About IKCEST