United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Laboratory "
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Research and Development
EPA/620/SR-93/010
December 1993
Project Summary
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program:
Agroecosystem 1992 Pilot
Project Plan
W.W. Heck, L. Campbell, A.L. Finkner, C.M. Hayes, G.R. Hess, J.R. Meyer,
M.J. Munster, D. Neher, S.L. Peck, J.O Rawlings, C.N. Smith, M.B. Tooley
The Agroecosystem Resource Group
(ARG) of the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) has
developed a 5-year program strategy
for implementation of a suite of indica-
tors for monitoring agroecosystem sta-
tus and trends. The 5-year period (1991-
1995) includes time to test concepts
relating to design, indicators, data
analysis, QA, logistics, and informa-
tion management at the pilot and dem-
onstration program stages. A primary
emphasis is the development of close
working relations between personnel
from the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture's National Agricultural Statis-
tics Service (USDA's MASS) and the
ARG. The 1992 Pilot Project in North
Carolina will test all aspects of the
monitoring program for a selected suite
of indicators. This 1992 pilot will have
sufficient flexibility to try a number of
innovative approaches to all facets of
the pilot. Results will be used to de-
velop a pilot in EPA Region 7 for 1993
that will address specific concerns
about applying the program indicators
in a different geographic area.
This Project Summary was developed
byEPA's Environmental Monitoring and
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).
Introduction
In 1992 members of EMAP's ARG be-
gan a pilot project in North Carolina. EMAP
is a U.S. Environmental .Protection Agency
(EPA) interagency initiative to monitor the
condition of the Nation's ecological re-
sources. The USDA's ARS was asked to
give technical leadership to the Agroeco-
system component, one of seven resource
categories within EMAP. The Technical
Director of AGR is with USDA-ARS. ARS
asked the USDA's NASS to cooperate in
the development and data collection as-
pects of the pilot project. These three agen-
cies are the principal cooperators in the
Pilot, which is an important developmen-
tal step towards the implementation of a
plan for monitoring the ecological condi-
tion of agroecosystems in the U.S. The
implementation plan for the pilot project
represents the combined effort of the mem-
bers of the ARG.
The mission of 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 process". The specific
objectives of the ARG parallel the overall
EMAP objectives. When fully implemented
the program will:
Estimate the distribution of agro-
ecosystems and the status and
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
trends in indicators of ecological
condition on a regional basis with
known statistical confidence.
Monitor indicators of pollutant ex-
posure and habitat quality and seek
associations between anthropo-
genic stresses and ecological con-
dition.
Provide periodic statistical summa-
ries and interpretive reports on eco-
logical condition to the public, to
the scientific community and to
policy-makers.
Within EMAP, agroecosystems are de-
fined as land used for crops, pastures and
livestock; 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). This defini-
tion of agroecosystems recognizes their
complexity and emphasizes a holistic ap-
proach that considers all components of
agroecosystems landscapes.
The ARG currently recognizes three
societal values as highly relevant to
agroecosystems: (1) supply of agricultural
commodities; (2) quality of natural re-
sources; and (3) conservation of biologi-
cal resources. These values serve as a
focus for the development of the overall
strategy for agroecosystem monitoring, for
the establishment of assessment end-
points, and for the selection of specific
indicators (measurements) of ecological
condition of the resource. Socioeconomic
factors are recognized as being inherent
in these values.
The ARG has developed a multiyear
program to establish the national imple-
mentation of a suite of indicators by 1997.
The first stage of the program (1990) en-
compassed the initial evaluation of: (1)
statistical designs; (2) existing monitoring
programs (i.e., MASS, Soil Conservation
Service, and Economic Research Service);
(3) assessment endpoints and associated
indicators (for their availability, validity,
variability, and cost); (4) data manage-
ment and analysis techniques; and (5)
derived outputs. During 1990, a national
monitoring strategy was developed on the
basis of these evaluations. In the second
stage of the program (1991) in-depth ex-
aminations were conducted of several ar-
eas critical to the planning and implemen-
tation of the 1992 Pilot Project: (1) statis-
tical design options; (2) measurements
associated with specific indicators and as-
sessment endpoints; (3) sampling proto-
cols; (4) cooperation with NASS; (5) logis-
tics; (6) total quality management; and (7)
information management.
The 1992 Pilot Project will test aspects
of the monitoring program with a limited
suite of indicators. Experience from the
1992 Pilot will be utilized to develop addi-
tional pilot projects and regional demon-
strations. Assuming that the pilots and
regional demonstrations are successful,
the implementation of specific components
of the program are anticipated on a na-
tional basis in 1995 or 1996.
Rationale and Objectives
Agroecosystems are managed inten-
sively for human welfare and activities in
the crop and non-crop components are
often influenced by government programs
and regulations. These intentional pertur-
bations of agroecosystems provide a se-
ries of challenges to the establishment of
an ecological monitoring program. Al-
though the focus of the ARG is ecological,
a full understanding of these intensively
managed systems requires that both eco-
logical and more traditional agricultural in-
formation be included.
It is essential to obtain certain informa-
tion on management practices for crops
and livestock, selected sociological and
economic factors, and agricultural land use
directly from the grower, because of the
importance of their inputs to agro-
ecosystems. It is also essential to obtain
specific samples, such as soil and water
samples, and measurements, such as pro-
duction efficiency, that relate directly to
the actual quantification of ecological con-
dition. Thus, the Pilot Project, and the
eventual implementation of a national
monitoring program, will be accomplished
through a combination of survey (ques-
tionnaire) and sampling methodology.
The Pilot Project has four major objec-
lives:- -- ' ^-
(1) Critically compare the relative effi-
ciency, in terms of cost and preci-
sion, of the EMAP Hexagon De-
sign and the NASS Rotational Panel
Design for use in a national
agroecosystem monitoring program.
(2) Empirically evaluate an initial suite
of indicators in order to: assess the
ability of an indicator to address
the assessment endpoints of inter-
est; establish an initial range of val-
ues for each indicator across the
diverse physiographic regions in
North Carolina; assess spatial vari-
ability of indicator values within and
among sample units; identify the
usefulness and sensitivity of each
indicator and assessment endpoint
in determining ecological condition;
and determine the cost-effec-
tiveness for each indicator.
(3) Develop and refine plans for key
components of the monitoring pro-
gram: sampling; logistics; total qual-
ity management; data analysis,
summarization, and reporting; in-
formation management; and qondi-
tion indices and their interpretation.
(4) Develop and evaluate additional in-
dicators that will address specific
assessment endpoints: soil quality-
biological component; landscape
structure; water qualrty-groundwa-
jerjx>mppnent; and biomonito.rs,of
ozone impact on crops.
The 1992 Pilot Project is not intended
to be a full implementation of the ARG,
but will provide information essential to
the successful development of regional
demonstration projects. The Pilot Project
represents the wise use of resources to
fully consider issues critical for the suc-
cess and implementation of the ARG.
Design and Statistical
Considerations
The ARG has two sampling plans un-
der consideration for long-term monitor-
ing, each of which uses the NASS Area
Frame segments as the basic sampling
unit. The two plans differ in the way the
segments to be used for indicator sam-
pling are selected. The,Pilot Study will
compare the results of a sampling strat-
egy based on using the EMAP Hexagon
Design to select the NASS segment ver-
sus the use of the Rotational Panel Plan
which uses a subset of segments from
the NASS June Enumerative Survey.
Data analysis will-include- (in -addition
to a simple statistical summary of the indi-
cator results): (1) estimation of variance
components to help determine future field
sampling strategies; (2) correlation analy-
sis to understand relationships among in-
dicators as well as spatial patterns of the
indicators; and (3) comparison of the vari-
ance and cost efficiencies of the two sam-
pling plans.
Assessment Endpoints and
Indicators
The ARG has identified three societal
values that are of primary importance in
determining agroecosystem condition. (1)
Supply of agricultural commodities ad-
dresses the ability of an agroecosystem
to provide adequate crop and livestock
yield and quality over the long term. (2)
-------
Quality of natural resources is the free-
dom of natural resources from harmful
levels of substances such as trace met-
als, pesticides, fertilizers, pathogens, salts,
and pollutants in one or more compo-
nents of the agroecosystem. Such materi-
als are present usually as a result of hu-
man activities, may be persistent and mo-
bile in the environment, have potential to
bioaccumulate in the food chain, or have
potential short- or long-term adverse ef-
fects on biota, including humans. (3) Con-
servation of biological resources reflects
the desire to maintain the ecological
soundness of crop and non-crop compo-
nents of the agricultural landscape as habi-
tat for plant, animal, and microbe species.
Assessment endpoints are quantitative
or quantifiable expressions of an environ-
mental value. Seventeen assessment end-
points have been identified for possible
use in the Agroecosystem monitoring pro-
gram; the five chosen for initial implemen-
tation in the 1992 Pilot are: (1) crop pro-
ductivity; (2) soil quality; (3) water quality;
(4) land use; and (5) agricultural chemical
use. These assessment endpoints will be
investigated through a suite of indicators
that involve data collected by both survey
and sampling techniques.
Assessment Endpoints
Crop Productivity
.Crop productivity has four facets as an
assessment endpoint: total production in
a region, yield (production per unit land
area), yield as a biological response indi-
cator adjusted for inputs, and production
efficiency (production per unit input). The
first two measures are already reported
by MASS. Thus, EMAP-Agroecosystems
is interested in the third and fourth facets
of crop productivity which emphasize the
ecological condition of the system. Infor-
mation will be gathered via .questionnaire
on crop production inputs and practices
and on yield estimates. These data, as
well as soils data, if necessary, will be
used to convert yield estimates to esti-
mates of productivity and to provide con-
version factors that will allow comparisons
of production efficiency among crops. The
possibility of converting yield values to
values of net primary productivity will also
be examined.
Soil Quality
The focus of soil quality assessment for
agroecosystems will be on the presence,
extent and change in those soil properties
that (1) are important to the functioning of
the soil system, (2) are known to be af-
fected by agricultural land management,
and (3) can be adequately measured in
one sampling period at a regional scale.
The short-term objective is to determine
the range and frequency distribution (in
proportion of land area) of individual mea-
sures and to begin evaluation of how well
the chosen measurements (i.e., organic
carbon, clay content, pH, cation exchange
capacity, base saturation, and lead con-
centration) and derived indices will reflect
changes in soil condition.
Water Quality
Wells and farm ponds, which serve as
sources of water for irrigation of agricul-
tural crops and as sources of drinking
water for wildlife are the focus of water
quality assessment for the Agro-
ecosystems pilot. The purpose of evaluat-
ing the ponds is in part to establish feasi-
bility of logistics for pond sampling. Also,
statistical issues for sample size determi-
nation will be investigated. Water samples
will be analyzed for concentrations of spe-
cific pesticides and nitrate.
Land Use
Agricultural landscapes are character-
ized by spatial and temporal patchiness
on many scales. Changes in land use
patterns may foreshadow ecological
changes in agricultural landscapes or may
themselves be the result of ecological
changes. Land use will be monitored at
multiple scales using: area frame materi-
als from NASS; thematic mapper data;
survey data collected by USDA-NASS; and
interpretation of aerial photographs. Mea-
sures of land use will include agricultural
land use intensity, overall land cover, over-
all land cover diversity, production land
use, and production land use diversity.
Agricultural Chemical Use
Agricultural chemical use is a quantita-
tive measure of the rates and spatial and
temporal distributions of chemicals applied
to agroecosystems. Through grower inter-
views, actual use of pesticides and fertiliz-
ers will be quantified. Use data will be
examined as a possible surrogate, in the
case of pesticides, for pest density and
pest spectrum. Also, the feasibility of con-
structing a risk or hazard index for
agroecosystems from agrichemical use will
be examined.
Research Endpoints
Soil Biological Health
Nematodes are ubiquitous in terrestrial
soils and trophic or functional groups of
nematodes are present at several critical
positions in the soil food web. Addition-
ally, the abundance and size of nema-
todes makes sampling easier and less
costly than for other microflora and fauna.
Thus, nematode community structure, as
quantified with one or more ecological in-
dices (e.g., diversity index, maturity index)
based upon trophic groups or families of
nematodes, is being investigated as a pos-
sible indicator of soil biotic diversity or soil
"health." Populations of nematodes in soil
samples (from the Rotational Panel De-
sign only) will be quantified for five trophic
groups: plant parasites, bacterivores, fun-
givores, omnivores and predators and in-
dex values will be calculated.
Landscape Structure
Because the spatial structure of the land-
scape affects the flow of energy and ma-
terials and the movement of organisms
among its components,, an indicator re-
search project is proposed to develop
multi-scale, quantitative, and ecologically
relevant descriptors of agricultural land-
scape structure. This activity will be con-
ducted in conjunction with the EMAP Land-
scape Characterization. The study area
will be the North Carolina portion of the
Albemarle-Pamlico watershed and will rely
on thematic mapper (satellite) imagery and
aerial photography. Potential landscape
descriptors include fractal analyses,
nearest-neighbor analysis, contagion in-
dex, and dissection index.
Water Quality-rGroundwater
Monitoring, Wells and Modeling
Monitoring conducted with existing
on-farm wells may be subject to built-in
bias due to factors such as well construc-
tion, location, and type of use. Thus, a
preliminary investigation will be conducted
to assess the relative advantages of the
use of existing oh-farm wells versus newly
drilled "research" wells for monitoring or- *
ganic pesticides and nitrates in ground-
water.
Biological Ozone-Indicator
System
A plant system that utilizes the relative
response to O3 of two clones of white
clover will be tested at four locations. The
two clones, NC-R and NC-S are differen-
tially sensitive to ozone. At each location
foliar injury of NC-S and NC-R and the
NC-S/NC-R ratios for chlorophyll and for-
age biomass will be used to estimate O3
concentrations for individual 28-day peri-
ods. Relationships between climate,'O3
concentrations, and the relative response
of NC-S and NC-R will be defined.
Quality Assurance
The purpose of quality assurance is to
ensure that the data will yield sound and
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 550467/8014«
-------
unbiased conclusions related to the prin-
cipal questions being addressed. Quality
assurance (QA) for the Agroecosystem
Program is being developed to assure the
reliability of measurements. The develop-
ment of a QA plan is an iterative process,
and information collected in this Pilot will
enhance future QA plans. Key compo-
nents of QA include data quality objec-
tives, standard operating procedures, QA
project plans, audits, QA annual reports,
and work plans. Because the ARG is a
cooperative effort between the ARS, EPA,
and NASS, the ARG will take full advan-
tage of QA procedures already employed
by NASS.
Logistical Planning
Implementation of the Agroecosystem
Pilot Project has required detailed logisti-
cal planning, including coordination and
oversight of all support and data collec-
tion activities. Logistical issues that have
been addressed by the ARG include: staff-
Ing, design of survey questionnaires, com-
munications, training, safety, sampling
schedule, site access and reconnaissance,
procurement and inventory control, field
operations, laboratory operations, waste
disposal, information management, qual-
ity assurance, cost tracking, and review of
operations.
From the standpoint of logistics, work-
ing with NASS has several benefits. Based
on the integrity and reliability of their per-
sonnel, NASS has developed a relation-
ship, over time, with the agricultural com-
munity that will greatly facilitate the collec-
tion of data. Additionally, NASS has a
fully developed infrastructure for the col-
lection of agricultural data, including
well-developed logistical procedures and
strict quality controls. Use of this infra-
structure greatly reduces the resources
that would be needed for the ARG to
develop similar procedures.
Information Management
The Agroecosystem 1992 Pilot Project
requires that data be obtained, stored,
manipulated, integrated, and analyzed.
New and existing data will come from
many sourcesHncluding-joint-ARG-NASS -
data collection efforts, other EMAP Re-
source Groups, other government agen-
cies, cooperating non-governmental orga-
nizations, and academic institutions. A
major component of the Agroecosystem
Pilot is the development of a close work-
ing relationship with NASS. Confidentiality
of data, and consequently data security,
are particularly critical issues to the ARG
NASS relationship. Privacy of individuals
who respond to NASS data collection ef-
forts is protected by law. Thus, data must
be kept confidential and can be released
only in an aggregated format that will not
enable individual respondents to be iden-
tified. This data confidentiality presents
some unique requirements for information
management in ARG that will be fully in-
vestigated in the 1992 Pilot.
Conclusion
The 1992 Pilot Project in North Carolina
will test concepts relating to design, indi-
cators, data analysis, QA, logistics, and
information management. A primary em-
phasis is the development of close work-
ing relations between personnel from
NASS and the ARG. This 1992 Pilot will
have sufficient flexibility to test a number
of innovative approaches. Results will be
utilized to develop a pilot in EPA Region 7
for 1993 to address specific concerns of
applying the program indicators in a dif-
ferent geographic-area.of, the country _
This research has been funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through its Office of Research and Devel-
opment (ORD) and conducted with our
research partners under the management
of the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory-Las Vegas. The work is in sup-
port of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) Issue. The
Project Report has been subjected to
ORD's peer and administrative review and
has been approved as an EPA publica-
tion.
Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
W. W. Heckand C.L Campbell are with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC 27606; C.M. Hayes is with the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC 27601; G.R. Hess, J.R. Meyer, M.J. MunsterDNeher,S.L Peck JO.
Rawllngs, M.B. Tooley andA.L Finknerare with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC27601; C.N. Smith is with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA 30613
Susan E Franson is the EPA Project Officer (see below). .
The complete report, entitled "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Agroecosystem 1992 Pilot Project Plan,
(Order No. PB94-121837/AS;
Cost: $19.50; subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road "
Sprlngfield,VA22161
Telephone: 703-487-4850
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Environmental Monitoring 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/620/SR-93/010
------- |