Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Biologically Based systems was unexpected and likely related to the inclusion of
leguminous cover crops in these rotations. Legumes may increase aggregate stabil-
ity through greater polysaccharide production and different microbial communities
(Haynes and Beare 1997).
That the No-till system better withstood the 2012 U.S. drought than did the other
systems (1.9 ± 0.12 Mg ha
-1
soybean grain in the No-till vs. 1.3 ± 0.05 Mg ha
-1
soy-
bean grain in the Conventional system) suggests a clear no-till benefit to soil fertility
even when external inputs are high. Greater moisture stores in the better-structured
no-till soils following the last significant rainfall before the drought (Fig. 2.6),
equivalent to ~4 cm of stored water in the root zone, underscore the value of no-till
agriculture to the 2012 soybean production. This enhanced water storage capacity
may also help explain greater no-till productivity in more normal years; on average,
yields in the No-till system were 9-21% higher than they were in the Conventional
system (Fig. 2.1). In the Reduced Input system, soil fertility allowed competitive
yields (Fig. 2.1) with only a fraction of the nitrogen and other inputs.
Valuing Ecosystem Services: The Social Component
The ability of row crops and agricultural landscapes to provide ecosystem services
is only part of the farming for services equation. The other is farmers' willingness
to implement practices that deliver additional services and, to the extent that adop-
tion probably requires economic compensation, society's willingness to pay for
these services.
The willingness of farmers to adopt new management practices that provide
additional services depends on awareness, attitudes, available resources, and incen-
tives (Swinton et al. 2015a, Chapter 3 in this volume). The current practices are
largely the result of past practices; cultural norms; and the availability of tech-
nology, policies, and markets that support sustained profitability. Although envi-
ronmental stewardship is a factor influencing many farmers' decisions, sustained
profitability is usually the overriding concern.
Particularly for those services related to reducing the environmental impact of
agriculture, farmers in Michigan—and presumably elsewhere—are more likely to
adopt practices that provide direct, local benefits. These benefits might be mon-
etary, such as higher profits or greater future land values, or nonmonetary, such
as safer groundwater for family use. To learn how farmers weigh environmental
benefits in their management decisions, Swinton et al. (2015a, Chapter 3 in this
volume) conducted a series of six farmer focus groups in 2007 and a subsequent
statewide survey of 1600 Michigan corn and soybean farms in 2008 (Jolejole 2009,
Ma et al. 2012). When asked to consider six environmental benefits of reduced
input agriculture and to rate their relative importance to themselves and to soci-
ety, the participating farmers in both settings ranked benefits such as increased
soil organic matter, soil conservation, and reduced nitrate leaching as significantly
more important to themselves than to society (Fig. 2.7). In contrast, reduced global
warming was ranked as more important to society than to the farmers. These atti-
tudes conform to the economic distinction between private and public goods and
