Subsurface drainage is a common practice used to support agricultural production and increase yields in poorly drained soils. Following decades of subsurface drainage installation, agricultural fields often have increased water discharge and nutrient losses. However, few studies have evaluated the changes in soil properties or soil health metrics at different ages of subsurface drainage. In this study, we attempt to quantify changes to soil properties over time. To achieve this, we sampled six fields in northwest Minnesota representing two timescales: three fields were drained more than 15 years prior to sampling (i.e., subsurface drainage installed prior to 2006), and three fields were drained within 5 years of sampling (i.e., subsurface drainage installed after 2016). We evaluated three soil physical properties: saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs), bulk density, and aggregate stability, as well as three soil health metrics at 0 to 15 and 15 to 30 cm: water-extractable organic carbon (WEOC) and nitrogen (WEON), and potentially mineralizable carbon (PMC). The fields with older drainage systems had greater Kfs, WEON (all depths), WEOC (15 to 30 cm), and PMC (15 to 30 cm). There were no differences in bulk density, aggregate stability, WEOC (0 to 15 cm), and PMC (0 to 15 cm). We suspect that the increased Kfs is likely the result of further development of preferential flow pathways in fields with older drainage systems. These preferential flow paths could also be areas with increased microbial diversity and activity, indicated by the higher biological indicators in the fields with older drainage systems. Our findings suggest that nutrient losses, soil physical properties, and soil health metrics evolve over time. These metrics should be tracked as a standard practice in drainage research to improve our understanding of how subsurface drainage installation changes long-term soil properties. This knowledge will improve the information provided to growers and help them more effectively manage their soil’s health and reduce nutrient losses into waterways.
{"title":"Comparing the short- and long-term impacts of subsurface drainage installation on soil physical and biological properties","authors":"A.L. Frankl, K.T. Sherbine, J.S. Strock, F.G. Fernández, A.M. Cates, L.A. Pease","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00147","url":null,"abstract":"Subsurface drainage is a common practice used to support agricultural production and increase yields in poorly drained soils. Following decades of subsurface drainage installation, agricultural fields often have increased water discharge and nutrient losses. However, few studies have evaluated the changes in soil properties or soil health metrics at different ages of subsurface drainage. In this study, we attempt to quantify changes to soil properties over time. To achieve this, we sampled six fields in northwest Minnesota representing two timescales: three fields were drained more than 15 years prior to sampling (i.e., subsurface drainage installed prior to 2006), and three fields were drained within 5 years of sampling (i.e., subsurface drainage installed after 2016). We evaluated three soil physical properties: saturated hydraulic conductivity (K<sub>fs</sub>), bulk density, and aggregate stability, as well as three soil health metrics at 0 to 15 and 15 to 30 cm: water-extractable organic carbon (WEOC) and nitrogen (WEON), and potentially mineralizable carbon (PMC). The fields with older drainage systems had greater K<sub>fs</sub>, WEON (all depths), WEOC (15 to 30 cm), and PMC (15 to 30 cm). There were no differences in bulk density, aggregate stability, WEOC (0 to 15 cm), and PMC (0 to 15 cm). We suspect that the increased K<sub>fs</sub> is likely the result of further development of preferential flow pathways in fields with older drainage systems. These preferential flow paths could also be areas with increased microbial diversity and activity, indicated by the higher biological indicators in the fields with older drainage systems. Our findings suggest that nutrient losses, soil physical properties, and soil health metrics evolve over time. These metrics should be tracked as a standard practice in drainage research to improve our understanding of how subsurface drainage installation changes long-term soil properties. This knowledge will improve the information provided to growers and help them more effectively manage their soil’s health and reduce nutrient losses into waterways.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135711949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00008.5
A. Gangwar, Surjeet Singh, Ravendra Singh, G. Sharma, N. Tirkey, Gaurav Singh, R. Verma, P. Gunjan
{"title":"Analysis on detection of trend in groundwater level in mid-western plain zone, India","authors":"A. Gangwar, Surjeet Singh, Ravendra Singh, G. Sharma, N. Tirkey, Gaurav Singh, R. Verma, P. Gunjan","doi":"10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00008.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00008.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81879528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Virginia Smith, a water resource engineer and researcher focused on flooding dynamics, asked in her 2021 TED talk, “Have you or a loved one ever been affected by flooding?… Chances are…you, or someone you know, has been impacted by flooding. There’s a powerless feeling in a flood. You can’t stop the rivers from rising. But for the first time [in history], we’re in a place where we can shift the power paradigm of flooding” (Smith 2021).
{"title":"Flooding: Management and risk mitigation","authors":"C. Gantzer, David R. Speidel","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.0630A","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.0630A","url":null,"abstract":"Virginia Smith, a water resource engineer and researcher focused on flooding dynamics, asked in her 2021 TED talk, “Have you or a loved one ever been affected by flooding?… Chances are…you, or someone you know, has been impacted by flooding. There’s a powerless feeling in a flood. You can’t stop the rivers from rising. But for the first time [in history], we’re in a place where we can shift the power paradigm of flooding” (Smith 2021).","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"35 1","pages":"20A - 22A"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84226969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Hovis, F. Cubbage, G. Smith, A. Zuniga-Teran, R. Varady, T. Shear, S. Chizmar, M. Lupek, M. Baldwin, A. Fox, A. Sand, T. Potter, M. Lovejoy, K. Larick, B. Evans
FloodWise is a pilot program that proposes nature-based solutions (NBS) for flood hazard mitigation (risk reduction) in eastern North Carolina to control stormwater runoff for brief periods of time. The program would provide financial incentives and technical assistance to rural landowners to adopt NBS on their properties. In this study, we assessed landowners’ willingness to accept (WTA) payments for adopting NBS on their properties using a payment card contingent valuation method (CVM) via a mail survey. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) incentivize landowners to participate in conservation efforts, as well as provide additional opportunities for revenue. Factors such as income, age, contract term length, revenue lost from previous storm events, and size of farm operation influenced one’s willingness to accept payments. The payment levels required for traditional farm conservation practices and NBS flood control practices were not significantly different, indicating that past program methods could help guide new FloodWise or similar NBS efforts. These results can help guide new NBS program development and funding deliberations in North Carolina, and perhaps other rural locations in the US Southeast.
{"title":"Estimating landowners’ willingness to accept payments for nature-based solutions in eastern North Carolina for flood hazard mitigation using the contingent valuation method","authors":"M. Hovis, F. Cubbage, G. Smith, A. Zuniga-Teran, R. Varady, T. Shear, S. Chizmar, M. Lupek, M. Baldwin, A. Fox, A. Sand, T. Potter, M. Lovejoy, K. Larick, B. Evans","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00131","url":null,"abstract":"FloodWise is a pilot program that proposes nature-based solutions (NBS) for flood hazard mitigation (risk reduction) in eastern North Carolina to control stormwater runoff for brief periods of time. The program would provide financial incentives and technical assistance to rural landowners to adopt NBS on their properties. In this study, we assessed landowners’ willingness to accept (WTA) payments for adopting NBS on their properties using a payment card contingent valuation method (CVM) via a mail survey. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) incentivize landowners to participate in conservation efforts, as well as provide additional opportunities for revenue. Factors such as income, age, contract term length, revenue lost from previous storm events, and size of farm operation influenced one’s willingness to accept payments. The payment levels required for traditional farm conservation practices and NBS flood control practices were not significantly different, indicating that past program methods could help guide new FloodWise or similar NBS efforts. These results can help guide new NBS program development and funding deliberations in North Carolina, and perhaps other rural locations in the US Southeast.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135711561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Nelson, L. Witthaus, M. T. Moore, M. Griffith, M. Locke, J.M. Taylor, R. Lizotte
In the Mississippi Delta region, tailwater recovery (TWR) systems are an important best management practice to address both water quality and quantity issues. TWRs are surface water capture-and-irrigation reuse systems using a combination of a ditch to capture surface water, an on-farm storage (OFS) reservoir to store captured surface water, and pumps to move surface water from the ditch into the OFS reservoir and to irrigate nearby fields. To determine if TWR systems are an effective way to reduce water use and downstream nutrient loads, water quality and quantity data from a ditch and pond TWR system in Sunflower County, Mississippi, were measured for five years. Objectives of this study were to assess seasonal TWR system runoff and runoff water quality trends. All water quality parameters had clear seasonal variation, except for chlorophyll a. Dissolved oxygen (DO), solids, conductivity, total dissolved organic carbon (TDOC), total phosphorus (TP), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) exhibited significant differences between OFS reservoir and ditch sites. Total solids were 2 to 4 times higher in the ditch than in the reservoir, depending on the season, indicating sediment lost from fields through runoff is not necessarily returned to the fields via irrigation from the reservoir. Nutrients were also generally higher in the ditch than in the reservoir. Phosphate (PO4) was 1.4 times higher in the ditch in spring compared to the reservoir, while ammonium (NH4) and nitrate (NO3) were 2 to 4 times higher in the ditch during the summer. These results suggest the reservoir serves an important function to process nutrients and sediments through settling, biological uptake of nutrients, and biogeochemical transformations and emphasizes the importance of a closed TWR system.
{"title":"Seasonal water quality trends in a tailwater recovery system in the Mississippi Delta","authors":"A. Nelson, L. Witthaus, M. T. Moore, M. Griffith, M. Locke, J.M. Taylor, R. Lizotte","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00090","url":null,"abstract":"In the Mississippi Delta region, tailwater recovery (TWR) systems are an important best management practice to address both water quality and quantity issues. TWRs are surface water capture-and-irrigation reuse systems using a combination of a ditch to capture surface water, an on-farm storage (OFS) reservoir to store captured surface water, and pumps to move surface water from the ditch into the OFS reservoir and to irrigate nearby fields. To determine if TWR systems are an effective way to reduce water use and downstream nutrient loads, water quality and quantity data from a ditch and pond TWR system in Sunflower County, Mississippi, were measured for five years. Objectives of this study were to assess seasonal TWR system runoff and runoff water quality trends. All water quality parameters had clear seasonal variation, except for chlorophyll a. Dissolved oxygen (DO), solids, conductivity, total dissolved organic carbon (TDOC), total phosphorus (TP), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) exhibited significant differences between OFS reservoir and ditch sites. Total solids were 2 to 4 times higher in the ditch than in the reservoir, depending on the season, indicating sediment lost from fields through runoff is not necessarily returned to the fields via irrigation from the reservoir. Nutrients were also generally higher in the ditch than in the reservoir. Phosphate (PO4) was 1.4 times higher in the ditch in spring compared to the reservoir, while ammonium (NH4) and nitrate (NO3) were 2 to 4 times higher in the ditch during the summer. These results suggest the reservoir serves an important function to process nutrients and sediments through settling, biological uptake of nutrients, and biogeochemical transformations and emphasizes the importance of a closed TWR system.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"18 1","pages":"26 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89578521","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00007.3
Sunil Kumar
{"title":"Implementation of water conservation based on drought assessment and its impact on crops by using UNEP Aridity Index","authors":"Sunil Kumar","doi":"10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00007.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00007.3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89656612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. Irvine, M. Houser, S. Marquart-Pyatt, G. Bogar, L. Bolin, E. Browning, S. E. Evans, M. M. Howard, J. Lau, J. Lennon
Improved soil health (SH) is critical in achieving agricultural resilience and mitigating climate risks. Whether SH management practices are widely used depends greatly on US farmers’ voluntary decision-making. Toward understanding this point, much research has addressed factors that contribute to the adoption (or lack thereof) of SH-promoting practices, but less is known in terms of farmers’ perceptions of SH itself and the corresponding management practices they see as related to achieving SH. To offer introductory insight on this knowledge gap and support better buy-in from farmers toward positive SH outcomes, our research draws upon qualitative interviews with 91 farmers across three key agricultural states in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan). We develop a more detailed understanding of farmers’ views on SH, and why and how they manage for it. Nearly all interviewed farmers were familiar with the concept of SH and most viewed it favorably. A minority of farmers lacked familiarity with the term “SH” yet still managed for it. Skeptics of SH largely cited uncertainties related to over-zealous messaging by proponents of SH or lack of evidence for the return on investment of SH practices. Overall, farmers’ perceptions of SH largely aligned with the scientific community’s understanding of soils being a dynamic system, though farmers most dominantly defined SH by its biological component. Farmers perceived a host of benefits of SH, most often noting benefits to production, followed by improvements in physical aspects of the soil such as erosion control and increased organic matter. Notably, production and sustainability benefits were often cited together, suggesting that SH management is increasingly seen as a “win-win” by farmers. Additionally, we found that many farmers view themselves as active participants in SH outcomes and believe their management choices are indicators of positive SH outcomes, regardless of the practices they employ, including some strategies (such as tillage or tile drainage) that do not align with scientifically documented approaches to improving SH. Our findings show that farmers report engaging in an array of SH management practices that target both biotic and abiotic components of soils, and often use multiple practices in tandem to promote SH on their farms. Achieving better SH in agricultural production in the future will require engaging farmers in SH management by tailoring outreach and communication strategies to align with the perspectives and language farmers themselves use to conceptualize SH.
{"title":"Soil health through farmers’ eyes: Toward a better understanding of how farmers view, value, and manage for healthier soils","authors":"R. Irvine, M. Houser, S. Marquart-Pyatt, G. Bogar, L. Bolin, E. Browning, S. E. Evans, M. M. Howard, J. Lau, J. Lennon","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00058","url":null,"abstract":"Improved soil health (SH) is critical in achieving agricultural resilience and mitigating climate risks. Whether SH management practices are widely used depends greatly on US farmers’ voluntary decision-making. Toward understanding this point, much research has addressed factors that contribute to the adoption (or lack thereof) of SH-promoting practices, but less is known in terms of farmers’ perceptions of SH itself and the corresponding management practices they see as related to achieving SH. To offer introductory insight on this knowledge gap and support better buy-in from farmers toward positive SH outcomes, our research draws upon qualitative interviews with 91 farmers across three key agricultural states in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan). We develop a more detailed understanding of farmers’ views on SH, and why and how they manage for it. Nearly all interviewed farmers were familiar with the concept of SH and most viewed it favorably. A minority of farmers lacked familiarity with the term “SH” yet still managed for it. Skeptics of SH largely cited uncertainties related to over-zealous messaging by proponents of SH or lack of evidence for the return on investment of SH practices. Overall, farmers’ perceptions of SH largely aligned with the scientific community’s understanding of soils being a dynamic system, though farmers most dominantly defined SH by its biological component. Farmers perceived a host of benefits of SH, most often noting benefits to production, followed by improvements in physical aspects of the soil such as erosion control and increased organic matter. Notably, production and sustainability benefits were often cited together, suggesting that SH management is increasingly seen as a “win-win” by farmers. Additionally, we found that many farmers view themselves as active participants in SH outcomes and believe their management choices are indicators of positive SH outcomes, regardless of the practices they employ, including some strategies (such as tillage or tile drainage) that do not align with scientifically documented approaches to improving SH. Our findings show that farmers report engaging in an array of SH management practices that target both biotic and abiotic components of soils, and often use multiple practices in tandem to promote SH on their farms. Achieving better SH in agricultural production in the future will require engaging farmers in SH management by tailoring outreach and communication strategies to align with the perspectives and language farmers themselves use to conceptualize SH.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"40 1","pages":"82 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73577002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cover cropping is considered a very cost-effective practice to reduce losses of nitrogen (N) from cropland to surface waters, as well as mobile nutrients in the soil profile prone to being lost to ground water sources. Cover crops are an important component of states’ commitment to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2016, annual cover crop transect surveys have been performed in Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay watershed. The surveys show that cover crops were used on 39% of the annual crop area in the period 2016 to 2021, much higher than average cover crop use in the United States (5%). About two-thirds of the cover crop area is “commodity cover crops” that are harvested (which included both grain and forage harvesting in the surveys), while the other one-third is “traditional cover crops” that are not harvested. It appears that high cover crop adoption in Pennsylvania without generous subsidy payments is due in great part to their use for forage. However, at the moment, commodity cover crops receive no credit for pollutant reduction in the Chesapeake Bay Model if fall nutrients are applied, which means approximately two-thirds of cover crop implementation in Pennsylvania does not count toward nutrient pollution reduction to the Chesapeake Bay. Further, transect surveys are not considered a valid (or only partial) method of practice implementation and the present results are therefore not included when determining if states meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits. Considering their importance, the contribution of commodity cover crops to nutrient and sediment loss reduction from cropland needs to be better understood. Specifically, our study revealed the need to (1) clarify in Chesapeake Bay Model documentation that commodity cover crops include those harvested for forage besides those harvested for grain; (2) develop a tracking mechanism so that nutrient reduction credit from commodity cover crops can be recognized in the Chesapeake Bay Model; and (3) to review whether the lower N reduction credit from commodity cover crops than for traditional cover crops and lower credit for early planting are justified.
{"title":"Adoption of cover crops in Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay watershed","authors":"S. Duiker, S. Richards","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.00080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.00080","url":null,"abstract":"Cover cropping is considered a very cost-effective practice to reduce losses of nitrogen (N) from cropland to surface waters, as well as mobile nutrients in the soil profile prone to being lost to ground water sources. Cover crops are an important component of states’ commitment to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Since 2016, annual cover crop transect surveys have been performed in Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay watershed. The surveys show that cover crops were used on 39% of the annual crop area in the period 2016 to 2021, much higher than average cover crop use in the United States (5%). About two-thirds of the cover crop area is “commodity cover crops” that are harvested (which included both grain and forage harvesting in the surveys), while the other one-third is “traditional cover crops” that are not harvested. It appears that high cover crop adoption in Pennsylvania without generous subsidy payments is due in great part to their use for forage. However, at the moment, commodity cover crops receive no credit for pollutant reduction in the Chesapeake Bay Model if fall nutrients are applied, which means approximately two-thirds of cover crop implementation in Pennsylvania does not count toward nutrient pollution reduction to the Chesapeake Bay. Further, transect surveys are not considered a valid (or only partial) method of practice implementation and the present results are therefore not included when determining if states meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits. Considering their importance, the contribution of commodity cover crops to nutrient and sediment loss reduction from cropland needs to be better understood. Specifically, our study revealed the need to (1) clarify in Chesapeake Bay Model documentation that commodity cover crops include those harvested for forage besides those harvested for grain; (2) develop a tracking mechanism so that nutrient reduction credit from commodity cover crops can be recognized in the Chesapeake Bay Model; and (3) to review whether the lower N reduction credit from commodity cover crops than for traditional cover crops and lower credit for early planting are justified.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"269 1","pages":"376 - 383"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84877167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00013.9
Ajeet Kumar, A. Kohli, S. Dutta, Y. Singh, Mahendra Singh, M. Ghosh, S.K. Gupta
{"title":"Deriving inputs for environmental conservation in using various N carriers for rice in rice-wheat cropping system","authors":"Ajeet Kumar, A. Kohli, S. Dutta, Y. Singh, Mahendra Singh, M. Ghosh, S.K. Gupta","doi":"10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00013.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5958/2455-7145.2023.00013.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90565873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S outh Asia (SA), a subcontinent, is the world's most densely populated region. It consists of nine countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (figure 1). Myanmar and Tibet are also sometimes included in the SA region but won’t be included in this article. SA is a region with common geography, history, culture, language, and religions. The SA region has the world’s highest mountain ecosystem, the Himalayas, also called the Third Pole (Chaudhary et al. 2023). It also faces serious challenges of ecological degradation, which transcend beyond political boundaries and jeopardize global peace and political stability. Important among these issues are climate change, food and nutrition insecurity, soil degradation/pollution along with extinct/endangered and peak soils, water scarcity, and eutrophication, which exacerbate the flood-drought syndrome. The latter is aggravated by denudation of the landscape, excessive grazing, and deforestation of ecologically sensitive ecoregions. Additionally, pollution of air quality is aggravated by in-field burning of crop residues and attendant emission of soot and greenhouse gases, which create positive feedbacks to global warming. Ecological degradation in SA, a complex issue, is driven by a wide range of interacting factors, including rapid population growth, urbanization, industrialization, rapid deforestation, economic growth, poverty, and a high dependence on natural resources (Sultana et al. 2022; EFSAS 2021; Chaudhary et al. 2023; Ajmal 2023). These degradation processes perpetuate the threats of undernutrition and malnutrition as well as decline in human health and well-being to a large proportion of the population. They also increase risks of political instability, civil strife, soil/climate refugees, and war among nations of the SA region (figure 2). Indeed, soil and ecological degradation is the common enemy of Rattan Lal is a distinguished university professor of soil science and is director of the CFAES Rattan Lal Center for Carbon Management and Sequestration, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Received March 27, 2023. all countries in SA, and they must cooperate, work together, and effectively address this menace. Thus, the objective of this article is to describe the common and hideous enemy of SA: soil and ecological degradation with its cascading adverse effects leading to human suffering; poverty; environmental pollution; global warming; political instability at local, regional, and global levels; and hostilities among neighboring countries. The specific hypothesis of the article is that restoring degraded soils and the polluted environment is critical to achieving human well-being and accomplishing lasting peace and harmony in SA.
南亚(SA)是一个次大陆，是世界上人口最稠密的地区。它由9个国家组成:阿富汗、孟加拉国、不丹、印度、伊朗、马尔代夫、尼泊尔、巴基斯坦和斯里兰卡(图1)。缅甸和西藏有时也被包括在南亚地区，但本文不包括在内。SA是一个拥有共同地理、历史、文化、语言和宗教的地区。南亚地区拥有世界上最高的山地生态系统，喜马拉雅山，也被称为第三极(Chaudhary et al. 2023)。中国还面临着超越政治边界、危及世界和平与政治稳定的生态退化的严峻挑战。其中重要的问题是气候变化、粮食和营养不安全、土壤退化/污染以及已灭绝/濒危和峰值土壤、水资源短缺和富营养化，这些问题加剧了水旱综合征。后者因景观的剥蚀、过度放牧和生态敏感地区的森林砍伐而加剧。此外，农田内焚烧农作物秸秆以及随之而来的烟尘和温室气体排放加剧了空气质量污染，这对全球变暖产生了正反馈。南亚的生态退化是一个复杂的问题，受到多种相互作用因素的驱动，包括人口快速增长、城市化、工业化、快速砍伐森林、经济增长、贫困和对自然资源的高度依赖(Sultana et al. 2022;欧洲食品安全署2021;Chaudhary et al. 2023;Ajmal 2023)。这些退化过程使营养不足和营养不良的威胁持续存在，并使很大一部分人口的健康和福祉下降。它们还增加了政治不稳定、内乱、土壤/气候难民和SA地区国家之间战争的风险(图2)。事实上，土壤和生态退化是Rattan Lal的共同敌人。Rattan Lal是俄亥俄州哥伦布市俄亥俄州立大学著名的土壤科学教授，也是CFAES Rattan Lal碳管理和碳吸收中心的主任。收于2023年3月27日。南非所有国家，他们必须合作，共同努力，有效地应对这一威胁。因此，本文的目的是描述森林退化的共同和可怕的敌人:土壤和生态退化及其连锁反应导致人类苦难;贫困;环境污染;全球变暖;地方、区域和全球各级的政治不稳定;邻国之间的敌对。文章的具体假设是，恢复退化的土壤和污染的环境对于实现人类福祉和实现SA的持久和平与和谐至关重要。
{"title":"Restoring South Asia’s degraded soils and ecosystems for peace and prosperity","authors":"Rattan Lal","doi":"10.2489/jswc.2023.0327A","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2023.0327A","url":null,"abstract":"S outh Asia (SA), a subcontinent, is the world's most densely populated region. It consists of nine countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (figure 1). Myanmar and Tibet are also sometimes included in the SA region but won’t be included in this article. SA is a region with common geography, history, culture, language, and religions. The SA region has the world’s highest mountain ecosystem, the Himalayas, also called the Third Pole (Chaudhary et al. 2023). It also faces serious challenges of ecological degradation, which transcend beyond political boundaries and jeopardize global peace and political stability. Important among these issues are climate change, food and nutrition insecurity, soil degradation/pollution along with extinct/endangered and peak soils, water scarcity, and eutrophication, which exacerbate the flood-drought syndrome. The latter is aggravated by denudation of the landscape, excessive grazing, and deforestation of ecologically sensitive ecoregions. Additionally, pollution of air quality is aggravated by in-field burning of crop residues and attendant emission of soot and greenhouse gases, which create positive feedbacks to global warming. Ecological degradation in SA, a complex issue, is driven by a wide range of interacting factors, including rapid population growth, urbanization, industrialization, rapid deforestation, economic growth, poverty, and a high dependence on natural resources (Sultana et al. 2022; EFSAS 2021; Chaudhary et al. 2023; Ajmal 2023). These degradation processes perpetuate the threats of undernutrition and malnutrition as well as decline in human health and well-being to a large proportion of the population. They also increase risks of political instability, civil strife, soil/climate refugees, and war among nations of the SA region (figure 2). Indeed, soil and ecological degradation is the common enemy of Rattan Lal is a distinguished university professor of soil science and is director of the CFAES Rattan Lal Center for Carbon Management and Sequestration, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Received March 27, 2023. all countries in SA, and they must cooperate, work together, and effectively address this menace. Thus, the objective of this article is to describe the common and hideous enemy of SA: soil and ecological degradation with its cascading adverse effects leading to human suffering; poverty; environmental pollution; global warming; political instability at local, regional, and global levels; and hostilities among neighboring countries. The specific hypothesis of the article is that restoring degraded soils and the polluted environment is critical to achieving human well-being and accomplishing lasting peace and harmony in SA.","PeriodicalId":50049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","volume":"57 1","pages":"97A - 102A"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75351146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：