United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency
 Environmental Monitoring
 Systems Laboratory
 Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
 Research and Development
 EPA/600/S4-917013  September 1992
 Project  Summary
 Agroecosystem Monitoring  and
 Research  Strategy:
 Environmental  Monitoring  and
 Assessment  Program
 Walter W. Heck, C. Lee Campbell, Robert P. Breckenridge, Gerald E. Byers,
 Alva L. Finkner, George R. Hess, Julie R. Meyer, Thomas J. Moser,
 Steven L Peck, John O. Rawlings and Charles N. Smith
  To project, manage, and use agro-
ecosystem resources effectively,  the
condition of these resources  must be
known. Concern about the documented
and potential effects of anthropogenic
stressors in the environment, chang-
ing conservation and land use pro-
grams, and use of agricultural chemi-
cals has been a major reason for the
development of the EPA-Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram (EMAP)/the Agroecosystem com-
ponent. In addition to the anthropo-
genic  stressors, the program is con-
cerned with how these  may  affect a
host of naturally occurring stressors.
The Agroecosystem component of
EMAP is  developing an ecologically
based monitoring initiative to determine
status and trends in land use and agro-
ecosystem health. The Agroecosystem
Resource Group (ARG) has identified
over 100 possible indicators, has cho-
sen 16 high priority indicators and is
developing details on five of these for
use in a 1992 pilot study. The Techni-
cal Director  for the ARG is with  the
Agricultural Research Service of  the
USDA  and  the  ARG  is  both  a
multidiscipline and multiagency group.
  The  purpose of this document is to
present a "Monitoring and Research
Strategy"  for the agroecosystems of
the U.S. It should serve as an overview
for other  State and Federal agencies
interested in participating. Monitoring
issues such as design, indicator selec-
tion and development, analysis, infor-
 mation management, and assessment
 are covered in the Strategy.
  This Project Summary was developed
 by  EPA's  Environmental Monitoring
 Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to
 announce key findings of the research
 project that is fully documented in a
 separate report of the same title (see
 Project Report ordering information at
 back).
  This document is  both a conceptual
 strategy and an  implementation plan for
 monitoring  the ecological  condition  of
 agroecosystems  in the United States. It
 represents  the combined  effort of the
 Agroecosystem Resource Group (ARG).
 The plan is viewed by the ARG as a living
 document that will serve as a basis for
 discussion of goals, objectives, concepts,
 and approaches.
  The agroecosystem monitoring program
 described in this document is one compo-
 nent of the Environmental Monitoring and
 Assessment Program (EMAP), a national
 program administered by the U.S. Envi-
 ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Of-
 fice of Research and Development (ORD).
 In response to recommendations by the
 EPA Science Advisory Board, Congress
 and the public, EPA is designing EMAP in
 cooperation  with  other agencies and or-
 ganizations.  EMAP is organized into seven
 resource categories to facilitate interagency
 cooperation  and to make the best use of
 scientific expertise. Interdisciplinary groups
 of scientists, called "Resource Groups",
 are responsible for developing strategies
for the collection,  analysis and integration
                                            /TV
                                               Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
          Inputs
                            Outputs
   Management practices:

         Tillage
        Chemicals
         Irrigation
   Natural environment:

       Precipitation
       Temperature
        Humidity
      Soil processes
         Pests
       Beneficials
                                   Crops and livestock
                                    Non-crop vegetation
Abiotic resources
 (soil, water, air)
                                      Agroecosystem
Non-point source
   loading:

 Agri-chemicals
   Sediments
     Salts
   Methane
 Animal wastes
Figure 1. A conceptual model of agroecosystems.


of data from each  of the ecological  re-
sources. In addition, seven crosscutting
coordination groups have been established
to assist the resource groups and to en-
sure total quality management, consistency
and integration of activities across the pro-
gram.
   For EMAP, agroecosystems are defined
as land used for crops, pasture and live-
stock; the adjacent  uncultivated land that
supports other  vegetation  (hedgerows,
woodlots, etc.) and wildlife; and the asso-
ciated  atmosphere, underlying soils,
groundwater, and drainage networks (first
and  second order  streams,  ponds,  and
irrigation drainage networks). A simplified
conceptual model (Figure 1) of an agro-
ecosystem shows both  natural  and an-
thropogenic inputs and both desirable and
undesirable outputs. The conceptual model
and the definition of agroecosystems illus-
trate how the Agroecosystem program is
being designed as a holistic approach that
considers  all constituent  components  of
agroecosystems.
   Agroecosystems  have  more impact on
our daily lives than any  of the other ter-
restrial ecosystems, because they provide
us with food and fiber and  influence  the
quality of our environment. Farmers have
the stewardship of more  of the global  en-
vironment  than  any other group; in  the
United States, crop land  accounts for ap-
proximately 443 million acres, nearly 20%,
of the total U.S. land area.
       Although agricultural systems are often
     viewed as  relatively  simple, they are far
     more complex than they  may appear ini-
     tially. The  periodic  and chronic  distur-
     bances that are an inherent part of agri-
     cultural  management  place  agroeco-
     systems among the most  rapidly changing
     landscapes on  earth. A healthy  agro-
     ecosystem  balances sustainable crop and
     livestock production with maintenance of
     air, water and soil integrity and  supports
     populations of  wildlife and vegetation in
     associated  non-crop  habitats. The degra-
     dation of any one component influences
     the  other  components in  the agroeco-
     system  and  in adjacent, linked  ecosys-
     tems.
       The mission  for the ARG is to  develop
     and implement a program to monitor and
     evaluate the long-term status  and trends
     of the nation's agricultural resources from
     an ecological perspective through an inte-
     grated,  interagency program. The objec-
     tives of the Agroecosystem program par-
     allel the overall EMAP program objectives,
     but  focus   more   specifically  on
     agroecological resources.  When  fully
     implemented, the program will meet the
     following objectives:   1) estimate the cur-
     rent status, extent, changes and trends in
     indicators of agroecosystem condition on
     a regional  basis  with known confidence;
     2) monitor  indicators of pollutant exposure
     and habitat quality and seek associations
     between  anthropogenic stresses and
agroecosystem condition;  and 3)  provide
periodic statistical summaries and  inter-
pretive reports on agroecosystem condi-
tion to the public, the scientific commu-
nity, and to policy-makers.
  Assessment endpoints that encompass
the concept of agroecosystem health will
be developed to  focus the interpretation
of indicator data. Assessment  endpoints
are a quantitative or quantifiable  expres-
sion of the environmental  value, such as
agroecosystem health,  to be monitored
and  assessed. Good  assessment end-
points have social and biological relevance,
an unambiguous operational definition, are
accessible to prediction and measurement,
and are susceptible to the environmental
stressors  of concern.  Assessment end-
points  are long-term societal values that
will not change over time, even when spe-
cific stressors or specific issues do change.
After  careful  consideration  of  important
scientific,  social,  economic and environ-
mental issues  concerning  agriculture,
agroecosystems,  and their associated sur-
roundings,  three assessment  endpoints
were  identified that summarize  the  es-
sence  of the issues. These are:  1) sus-
tainability of commodity production; 2) con-
tamination  of natural resources; and
3) quality of agricultural  landscapes. Al-
though members of the ARG agree on the
basic issues addressed, they are still de-
bating the terminology and organization of
these endpoints.
   Sustainability of commodity production
refers to the capacity of a particular agro-
ecosystem to maintain a  level  of crop or
livestock productivity that  provides for ba-
sic human food and fiber needs, and an
economically  viable livelihood for farmers
without polluting or seriously depleting soil,
water, wildlife, fossil  fuel  or  other re-
sources.  Continual  removal  of biomass
from agricultural fields necessitates inputs
or adjustments to  maintain  productivity;
however,  long-term sustainability of agro-
ecosystems can  be  masked  in the short-
term  by  management  practices.  Inputs,
outputs, socioeconomic factors,  and the
use of natural resources will be consid-
ered  in the  assessment of agronomic
sustainability.
   Contamination is  defined as the pres-
ence of anthropogenically-related stressors
that have direct or indirect effects on the
sustainability, productivity,  structure or
function of the agroecosystem. Contami-
 nants  can be found  in the air, soil, water,
and biota of agroecosystems,  and may
 include air pollutants, agricultural chemi-
cals, animal and municipal wastes, water
 pollutants,  and genetically-altered organ-
 isms.  Contaminants  can also be trans-

-------
 ported from  agroecosystems. On a  re-
 gional and national scale, managed agri-
 cultural  systems  contribute to nonpoint
 source pollution through loss  of  agricul-
 tural chemicals and sediments carried to
 streams and rivers. On a local level, man--
 aged  agricultural systems can be pollution
 point sources, such as pesticide drift from
 aerial spraying, that can impact immedi-
 ately adjacent areas.
   The quality of  agricultural  landscapes
 refers to the various  ways in which the
 landscape matrix is  modified or employed
 for  agricultural and non-agricultural pur-
 poses over time. Agricultural land use pat-
 terns  exert a major influence on ecologi-
 cal  processes. For example,  landscape
 heterogeneity may affect soil erosion, wa-
 ter quality, crop-pest interactions, ecologi-
 cal diversity and the spread  of diseases.
 A vital characteristic of landscape  modifi-
 cation is the extent to which the surround-
 ing landscape can support populations of
 non-crop vegetation and wildlife.  An  as-
 sessment  of  agroecosystem  health and
 the  development  of sustainable agricul-
 tural systems must consider landscape
 level processes over time and  the cou-
 pling of  natural and agricultural compo-
 nents  of  the landscape.
   The Agroecosystem  program  is de-
 signed to evaluate the  health or condition
 of U.S. agroecosystems. The program is
 designed to complement  existing monitor-
 ing efforts such as those carried  out by
 USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Ser-
 vice (MASS), USDA/Soil Conservation Ser-
 vice (SCS)-National Resources Inventory
 (NRI),  USDA/Economics  Research Ser-
 vice (ERS) and the USDC Bureau of the
 Census by adding an essential ecological
 dimension to current data collection, com-
 pilation and  interpretation. The  program
 will utilize existing monitoring data where
 possible  and  will  provide  new  data  on
 trends  in the condition of crop and non-
 crop resources which will be interpretable
 from environmental, ecological, agricultural
 or agroecological viewpoints.
  The  EMAP  program  has established a
 four-tier approach  to ecological  monitor-
 ing. Tier 1 emphasizes  landscape charac-
 terization  and estimates  of extent  of re-
 source and land use; Tier 2 provides esti-
 mates  of  condition and trends; Tier  3 con-
 centrates on detailed diagnostics; and Tier
 4 represents research sites established to
 answer specific cause-effect  questions.
 The Agroecosystem program currently fo-
cuses primarily on Tier 2 with some activi-
ties at  Tier 1. Tier 2 involves field sam-
pling to provide measurements of  status
and trends in indicators of agroecosystem
condition  on a regional  basis.
  The  planned data collection approach
is through a cooperative program with the
 National Agricultural Statistics Service
 (NASS) under which MASS enumerators
 collect all or most of the Agroecosystem
 indicator data.  The Agroecosystem  pro-
 gram will cooperate with NASS in one of
 two ways for Tier 2 sampling. NASS cur-
 rently samples over 16,000 segments an-
 nually  in the June Enumerative  Survey
 (JES) and  has  been involved  in agricul-
 tural surveys since 1954.  The first, the
 Hexagon Plan,  uses the  NASS primary
 sampling unit (PSU) located at the cen-
 troid of the EMAP  hexagons.  Using the
 NASS  stratification, approximately 3,200
 hexagons would be selected at random to
 achieve optimum allocation. The selected
 segment, identified by the centroid, would
 then be used for the duration  of  EMAP.
 The  second plan, the  Rotational  Panel
 Plan, takes advantage of the NASS sample
 and  uses  approximately  20% (approx.
 3,200) of the segments used in the NASS
 JES  sample. The NASS sample has five
 interpenetrating replicates of  the  total
 sample, designed such  that each repli-
 cate  rotates out of the sample  after five
 years. Initial investigation seems to indi-
 cate  that the RPP may have advantages
 over the Hexagon Plan.  This is currently
 being explored  theoretically and will be
 tested during the pilot.
   Field sampling  protocols for  obtaining
 indicator data at the field  level  from the
 sample segment are being developed in
 close cooperation with NASS. Among the
 statistical issues involved are selecting the
 field, choosing the sampling points and
 determining the appropriate sampling den-
 sity within the field.  Field sampling tech-
 niques will  be evaluated during a 1992
 pilot,  as well as sampling protocols,  the
 effectiveness of  the  training manuals for
 NASS, and interaction with the NASS enu-
 merators. Throughout the survey process,
 the ARG will be alert to the kinds of errors'
 that may occur and will take steps to con-
 trol, minimize and measure them.
   Initial analyses of the  monitoring data
 will be directed  toward the routine sum-
 marization of  indicator  values that
 measure ecosystem health. Interpretive
 analyses will be aimed at  understanding
 the correlation structure  among  the indi-
 cators, regional spatial patterns and con-
 cordance  of spatial patterns for stressor
 and response indicators, time trends, and
 the development of health indices for the
 agroecosystem.  In addition to the indica-
 tor variables themselves, extensive infor-
 mation will be collected on ancillary data
to  facilitate interpretation of indicators.
  The Agroecosystem program  will  ob-
tain, store, manipulate, integrate and ana-
 lyze data. These data will come from many
sources,  including joint Agroecosystem-
 NASS collection  efforts, from other EMAP
 Resource Groups, other government agen-
 cies,  cooperating non-government agen-
 cies, and academic institutions. The infor-
 mation collected and created by the pro-
 gram will be available, at some level, to
 researchers in these same agencies and
 institutions. Researchers must know what
 data are available, where they are located,
 and how they can be accessed.  Informa-
 tion about methods used to collect data,
 including details about  data quality, must
 be available. To ensure that  data  are of
 the highest quality, carefully designed pro-
 cedures for the movement and manipula-
 tion of data, from field  collection through
 analysis,  are planned as  an  information
 management effort.  Because the data are
 to be widely available, there must be  a
 policy and mechanism which protects the
 privacy of the individual respondents. Thus,
 confidentiality of data,  and consequently
 data  security,  are critical  issues for the
 ARG. The Agroecosystem program  objec-
 tives  require that data  be collected from
 individual growers and operators.
   From the standpoint of information man-
 agement, working with  NASS is the best
 approach because:  1) the relationship of
 NASS with the agricultural community will
 facilitate data collection; 2) NASS provides
 confidentiality of data to  individual farm
 operators; 3) NASS  has a fully developed
 infrastructure for the collection of agricul-
 tural data, including  strict quality controls;
 and 4) NASS has  developed the  com-
 puter resources to organize, analyze, and
 quickly report on large volumes of data.
   The  database developed  from  the
 Agroecosystem  program will provide es-
 sential data for conducting  ecological  risk
 assessments. Such assessments estimate
 the effects of both anthropogenic and natu-
 ral activities on  ecological resources and
 allow  the  significance of those effects to
 be interpreted with quantified  uncertainty
 estimates. The primary  role of the  Agro-
 ecosystem program  in the overall risk as-
 sessment process is  to identify and quan-
 tify agroecological hazard  related to  the
 assessment endpoints which can then be
 used in risk assessment. Hazards will be
 identified within  agroecosystems through
 the use of indicators of ecosystem condi-
 tion. Overall risk assessment will be  facili-
 tated  through effective information ex-
 changes and monitoring linkages with other
 ecosystem resource  groups.
   The ARG will communicate findings on
 condition and  status and trends through
 at  least four types  of  informational  out-
 puts. Annual statistical summaries and il-
 lustrative maps  will  be  published within
 nine months after the collection of the last
sample information for each year.  Inter-
pretative reports  will be produced  at ir-

-------
Table 1.   Implementation Schedule and Budget Needs for 1991-1995
Year/Stage
                               No. of States
                                                No. of sites
1990 Planning

1991 Final planning/
  field research

1992 Southern pilot

1993-Sourthern Regional
200(100)
Demonstration
-North Central Pilot
1994-Southern Implementation
•North Central Regional
Demonstration
-Western Pilot
1995-Southern Full Implementation
-North Central Implementation
-Western Regional Demonstration
-Northeastern Pilot
8
1
8

4
1
13
9
3
1
400
100
400

200
100
400
300
200
100
  Estimated Cost
(budgeted) $millions

      $0.45

      0.40


     1.3(0.80)
                                                                   2.4 (2.40)

                                                                   5.5 (4.16)




                                                                    7.0 (6.2)
 Table 2.   Long- Term Strategy: Technical and Administrative Personnel Needs "

                         91       92(approved)      93          94-Est.
Technical Director
Deputy TD (EPA)
Associate TD
Scientific Staff
Research Associates
Statisticians
Information Managers
QA/QC Staff
Logistics Staff
Technicians
Support Staff
Total
1.0
0.5
.35
1.25
1.75
2.0
0.5
-
-
1.5
1.0
9.85
1.0
1.0
.35
2.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
-
-
1.0
1.5
10.65
1.0
1.0
.35
4.0
6.0
3.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
3.0
3.0
21.85
                         95-Est.
1.0
1.0
.35
7.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
10.0
4.0
37.85
1.0
1.0
.35
9.0
8.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
18.0
7.0
56.35
regular intervals. Research papers will also
be prepared periodically.
  Summary implementation schedule and
budget needs for 1991 through 1995 are
shown in Table 1; minimal personnel needs
to accomplish  the  planned implementa-
tion are shown in Table 2.
  The information in this document has
been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental  Protection Agency
under interagency  agreement  DW129-
34170 with the  U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Agricultural  Research  Service,
Contract  No. 68-CO-0049  to  Lockheed
Engineering  & Sciences Company, Con-
tract  No.  68-C8-0006 to  ManTech Envi-
ronmental Technology, Inc., Corvallis, OR
and Contract No.  68-DO-0106 to Man-
Tech Environmental Technology, Inc.,  Re-
search  Triangle Park,  NC. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer  and ad-
ministrative review,  and it has been ap-
proved  for publication as an  EPA docu-
ment.
   Mention of trade names or  commercial
products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
  This does not include staff of the NASS who actually carry out the surveys.
                                                                                        •U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992—648-080/60136

-------

-------

-------

-------
 Walter W. Heck is  with the  U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Agricultural Research
   Service, Raleigh, NC. C. Lee Campbell, Alva L. Finkner, George Hess, Steven L.
   Peck, and John O. Rawlings are with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
   Robert P. Breckenridge is with the Idaho National Engineering Lab, Idaho Falls, ID.
   Gerald E. Byers is with Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co., Las Vegas NV. Julie
   R. Meyer is with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Research Triangle Park,
   NC.  Tom Moser is with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Corvallis, OR.
   Charles N. Smith is with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
   Research Laboratory, Athens, GA
 Ann M. Pitchford is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
 The complete  report, entitled "Agroecosystem Monitoring and Research Strategy:
   Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, "(Order No. PB93-100071/AS;
   Cost: $35.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
         National Technical Information Service
         5285  Port Royal Road
         Springfield, VA22161
          Telephone: 703-487-4650
 The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
         Environmental Monitring Systems Laboratory
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
      BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT NO. G-35
EPA/600/S4-91/013

-------