Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:54:58.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impacts of low and high input agriculture on landscape structure and function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Richard Lowrance  and
Peter M. Groffman
Richard Lowrance
Affiliation:
Ecologist with the Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA 31793.
Peter M. Groffman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881-0804.
Get access

Abstract

The conversion from high to low input agricultural systems has been studied at the field and farm scale but analysis of the effects of conversion at the landscape or regional scale has not previously been attempted. In this paper, we apply existing historical data bases on changing inputs and changing land uses to project possible effects of conversion on productivity and environmental quality on the landscape scale. We chose two areas for the analysis of changing input effects on landscape structure and function. One area is a region defined as the southern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan (Southern Lower Michigan or SLM). The second area is a small watershed, Watershed K of the Little River Watershed, in the Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Plain of Georgia. In SLM, land use data suggest that lower input use will lower per hectare productivity, and that regional production can only be maintained by bringing marginal lands into production. The prime lands not already in crop production in SLM are mostly poorly drained or sandy soils which will require either drainage modifications or supplemental irrigation for crop production. Intensification of input use in SLM during the last 20 years has led to increases in aggregate production, but may have contributed to declining water quality in the Grand River, the major drainage of that region. On Watershed K, corn grain yield was linearly related to N fertilizer application. A hypothetical yield response curve with a yield of 1500 kg/ha of corn grain without nitrogen fertilizer was selected for use in the analysis of changing inputs. Land use data on Watershed K showed that even with no nitrogen input to corn, the aggregate production of corn could be maintained without encroachment on riparian areas which are critical to maintenance of water quality. Our analyses, which are limited to historical data on the relationships among input, yield, and environmental quality, raise many questions about the landscape scale effects of conversion from high to low input systems. Relationships between inputs and yields are poorly understood at the field scale and relationships among inputs, productivity, and environmental quality have not been established at the landscape scale. Our analyses also raise questions about the need to maintain aggregate landscape production in the light of crop surpluses and declining environmental quality.

Keywords

MichiganGeorgiacornnitrateyieldcrop surpluses
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , Fall 1987 , pp. 175 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Albert, D. A., Denton, S. R., and Barnes, B. V.. 1986. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan. School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
2.Doolittle, W. E. 1984. Agricultural change as an incremental process. Annals of the Amer. Assoe, of Geogr. 74:124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Gulinck, H. 1986. Landscape ecological aspects of agro-ecosystems. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 16:79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Haimes, Y. Y. 1977. Hierarchical analyses of water resources systems. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.Google Scholar
5.Kudeyarov, V. N., and Bashkin, V. N.. 1984. Study of landscape-agro-geochemical balance of nutrients in agricultural regions: Part III. Nitrogen. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 23:141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Lowrance, R., Sharpe, J. K., and Sheridan, J. M.. 1986. Long-term sediment deposition in the riparian zone of a coastal plain watershed. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 41:266–271.Google Scholar
7.Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail, J. Jr., Hendrickson, O. Jr., Leonard, R., and Asmussen, L.. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34:374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986. Michigan agricultural statistics. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Lansing, Michigan. (Publications from years other than 1986 were also used.)Google Scholar
9.Risser, P. G., Karr, J. R., and Forman, R. T. T.. 1984. Landscape ecology: Directions and approaches. Ill. Nat. Hist Surv. Publ. No. 2. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
10.Smith, R. A., Alexander, R. B., and Wolman, M. G.. 1987. Water-quality trends in the nation's rivers. Science 235:1607–1615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Tangley, L. 1986. Crop productivity revisited. BioScience 36:142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Urban, D. L., O'Neill, R. V., and Shugart, H. H.. 1987. Landscape ecology. BioScience 37:119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.whiteside, E. P., and Lumbert, P. J.. 1986. Some soilland use relationships in Michigan in 1967 and 1982. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report #470.Google Scholar