United States
              Environmental Protection
              Agency
Environmenta/ Monitoring  .
Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
              Research and Development
EPA/620/SR-93/014  March 1994
EPA     Project Summary

              Environmental  Monitoring  and
              Assessment  Program:
              Agroecosystem  Pilot  Field
              Program  Plan—1993
              L Campbell, J. Bay, C. Franks, A. Hellkamp, N. Helzer, G. Hess, M. Munster,
              D. Neher, G. Olsen, J. Rawlings, B. Schumacher, M. Tooley
                The Agroecosystem Resource Group
              (ARG) of the Environmental Monitoring
              and Assessment Program (EMAP) has
              developed a 5-year (1991-1995) strat-
              egy for the development, evaluation,
              and implementation of a suite of indi-
              cators for monitoring agroecosystem
              status and trends on a regional and
              national basis. The 5-year period in-
              cludes time to test concepts relating to
              design, indicators, quality assurance,
              logistics, information management, data
              analysis, assessment, and reporting at
              the pilot and demonstration program
              stages. A  primary emphasis is on the
              development of close working relations
              between personnel from the U.S. De-
              partment of Agriculture's (USDA) Na-
              tional Agricultural Statistics Service
              (NASS) and Soil Conservation Service
              (SCS) and the ARG. The 1993  Pilot
              Project in Nebraska will test all aspects
              of the monitoring program for a se-
              lected suite of indicators. This  1993
              pilot will have sufficient flexibility to
              allow a  number of  innovative ap-
              proaches to be examined in the vari-
              ous facets of the pilot. Results will be
              utilized to plan for a regional demon-
              stration project and  address specific
              concerns of applying the program indi-
              cators in a different geographic area of
              the country. In addition, results will as-
              sist the ARG in establishing a set of
              core indicators for use  in monitoring
              the status, trends, and condition of the
              Nation's agroecological resources.
                This Project Summary was developed
              by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to an-
nounce key findings of the research project
that is fully documented in a separate
report (see Project Report ordering infor-
mation at back).

Introduction
  In 1993  a Pilot Field Program will be
conducted  in Nebraska by  members of
EMAP's ARG. EMAP is an EPA inter-
agency, interdisciplinary initiative to moni-
tor the condition of the Nation's ecological
resources.  The US'DA's Agricultural  Re-
search Service. (USDA-ARS) was asked •
to give technical  leadership to the Agro-
ecosystem  component, one of six resource
categories  within  EMAP. Accordingly, the
Technical  Director of ARG is with  the
USDA-ARS. The ARG asked the USDA's
NASS to cooperate in the  development
and data collection  aspects of the Pilot
Field Program. In addition, the ARG asked
the USDA's SCS to participate in the col-
lection and characterization of soils and
the  analysis of soil samples from agro-
ecosystem  sampling units. These 4 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 mission of the ARG is to develop
and implement a program that will, monitor
and assess the condition and extent of
the Nation's agroecosystems from an eco-
logical perspective through an interagency
process. The  specific objectives of the
ARG parallel the overall EMAP objectives.
When fully  implemented the  program will:

-------
  • Estimate the  status, trends and
    changes in selected indicators of the
    condition  of  the  Nation's  agro-
    ecological resources on  a  regional
    basis with known confidence.
  • Estimate the geographic coverage and
    extent of the Nation's agroecological
    resources with known confidence.
  • Seek associations  between  selected
    indicators of  natural and anthropo-
    genic stresses  and indicators  of the
    condition of agroecological resources.
  • Provide  annual statistical summaries
    and  periodic  assessment  of the
    Nation's agroecological resources.
  An  agroecosystem is a dynamic asso-
ciation of crops, pasture, livestock, other
plants and animals, atmosphere, soils, and
water. The  agroecosystem includes not
only the field, but also the associated bor-
der areas such as windbreaks, fence rows,
ditch  banks, and farm  ponds. Agroeco-
systems  interact within  larger landscapes,
which include uncultivated land, drainage
networks, human communities, and wild-
life.
  The sustainability of agroecosystems is
of primary importance to the people of the
U.S.  and the world. Although there are
several aspects of sustainability, the ARG
is interested in the ecological sustainability
of agroecosystems. An agroecosystem is
ecologically  sustainable if it maintains or
enhances its own long-term  productivity
and biodiversity, the biodiversity of sur-
rounding ecosystems,  and  the quality of
air, water and soil.
  The EMAP-Agroecosystems monitoring
effort is  based upon assessment ques-
tions  related to three societal  values. The
three societal values for agroecosystems
are  the component  of  ecological
sustainabilrty-Hqualtty of air,  water,  and
soil; productivity; and biodiversity.
  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 (MASS, Soil  Conservation Ser-
vice,  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 Pilot Field Programs: (1) statisti-
cal design options; (2) measurements as-
sociated 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
Field Program in North Carolina, conducted
in cooperation with USDA-NASS tested
aspects of the monitoring program with a
limited suite of indicators. Experience from
the 1992  Pilot  has been  utilized to im-
prove vital aspects of the planned  1993
Pilot Field Program. Experience from the
pilot programs  will be used to  develop
(based upon availability of funds) regional
demonstrations which will eventually lead
to national implementation.

Rationale and Objectives
   Agroecosystems  are  managed  inten-
sively for  the benefit of people. As  a re-
sult, activities in agroecosystems are of-
ten influenced by  government programs
and  regulations and by socioeconomics.
These perturbations are beyond the realm
of traditional ecology and provide a series
of challenges to the establishment of  an
ecological   monitoring  program  for
agroecosystems.
   The Agroecosystem monitoring program
will be carried  out through a combined
survey and sampling approach.  Informa-
tion on inputs and  management practices
will be obtained directly from the grower,
soil samples, and on-site measurements.
All of  this information will  be integrated
into indices such as crop productivity, pro-
duction efficiency, soil quality, and habitat
suitability.
   Region  VII and  the state of Nebraska
were selected for the 1993 Pilot Field Pro-
gram for several reasons:

   1.   The physiographic diversity of the
      state  is  representative of typical
      midwestern agroecosystems (inten-
      sively cropped areas) and western
      agroecosystems (sparsely cropped
      areas); the state contains  a transi-
      tion zone between these  types  of
      agroecosystems; and the state con-
      tains an  area (Platte River Basin)
      where  intensively managed  agro-
      ecosystems  intrude into an area of
      nonintensively managed systems.
   2.   Nebraska contains a transition be-
      tween agroecosystems and arid eco-
      systems, which will  allow for the
      careful definition of the areas of re-
      sponsibility of the ARG and the Arid
      Lands  Resource Group.
   3.   EPA Region VII expressed strong
       interest in the Agroecosystem moni-
       toring program.
   The 1993 Pilot Field Program has four
 major objectives:

   1.   Empirically evaluate an initial suite
      of indicators to evaluate the ability
      of an indicator to address the as-
      sessment questions and societal
      values of interest; establish an ini-
      tial range of values and variance for
      each indicator across a midwestern
       region; assess components of vari-
      ability of indicators within and among
      sample units; identify the usefulness
      and  sensitivity of each indicator  in
      determining ecological  condition;
      and determine the cost-effectiveness
      of each indicator.
   2.   Compare the relative  efficiency,  in
      terms of cost and precision,  of the
       EMAP Hexagon  Design  and the
       NASS Rotational Panel Design for
       use  in  a national  agroecosystem
       monitoring program.
   3.   Develop  and  refine plans for key
      components of-the monitoring pro-
       gram, including sampling,  logistics,
      total quality  management,  data
       analysis, summarization, and report-
       ing and information management.
   4.   Develop  and  evaluate  additional
       measurements that will address spe-
       cific indicators, including  soil qual-
       ity, biological components, and land-
       scape structure.
   The 1993 Pilot Field  Program  is not
 intended to be  a full implementation of the
 agroecosystem monitoring program, but
 will  provide information essential to the
 successful development of regional dem-
 onstration projects.  The Pilot Field Pro-
 gram represents an  essential step in pro-
 gram development to fully consider issues
. critical for the success and implementa-
 tion of a national monitoring program.

 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
 evaluate the results of a sampling strat-
 egy based on  using the EMAP  Hexagon
 Design  to  select the NASS segment  to
 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 indica-
 tor 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.

 Indicators
   Five indicators were selected for evalu-
 ation  in the 1993 Pilot Field Program.
 These are: (1) crop productivity;  (2) soil
 quality—physical and  chemical;  (3) soil
 biotic  diversity;, (4) land use and cover;
 and (5) agricultural pest management.

 Crop Productivity
   Crop productivity has four facets of in-
 terest to EMAP-Agroecosystems: total pro-
 duction in a  region, yield (production per
 unit land area), yield as a  biological re-
 sponse indicator adjusted for inputs, and
 production efficiency (production  per unit
 input). The first two measures are already
 reported by the USDA-NASS. Accordingly,
 EMAP-Agroecosystems is gathering new
 information primarily for the third and fourth
 facets of crop  productivity which  empha-
 size the ecological condition of the sys-
, tern. Information will be gathered via ques-
 tionnaire 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
 estimates of productivity and to provide
 conversion factors that will allow compari-
 sons of production efficiency among crops.
 The possibility of  converting yield values
 to values  of net primary productivity will
 also be examined.

 Soil  Quality-Physical and
 Chemical
   The focus of soil quality assessment for
 agroecosystems will be on the presence,
 extent and change in those soil properties
 that are (1) important to the functioning of
 the soil system, (2) known to be  affected
 by agricultural  land management, and (3)
 can be adequately measured in one sam-
 pling period at  a regional scale. The short-
 term objective is to determine the range
 and frequency distribution (in  proportion
 of land area) of individual measures and
 to begin  evaluation of how  well the cho-
 sen measurements (organic carbon, clay
 content,  pH,  cation exchange capacity,
 base  saturation, and lead  concentration)
 and derived indices will reflect changes in
 soil condition.
  Two sampling methods will be used in
the Pilot. In one method, NASS enumera-
tors will sample the plow layer within fields
by taking soil samples (2.5 x 20 cm deep)
along one or more transects within each
selected field. These samples will be
mailed to the SCS Soil Analysis Labora-
tory in  Lincoln,  NE  to be analyzed for
particle size, pH, organic C, cation  ex-
change capacity and exchangeable cat-
ions, and  available phosphorus and cal-
cium carbonate  equivalent. In a second
method, in approximately 40 fields, SCS
State soil  scientists will visit a field after
the NASS enumerator and will dig a 50-
cm deep soil characterization pit. The soil
scientists will record the  soil series and
will take samples for analysis in up to four
horizons. Samples will be submitted to
the SCS Soil Analysis Laboratory and will
be analyzed for particle size, pH, organic
C,  cation  exchange capacity  and  ex-
changeable cations, available phosphorus,
calcium carbonate equivalent, bulk den-
sity, 15-bar water retention and aggregate
stability. Results of the two sampling meth-
ods will be compared.

Soil Biotic Diversity
  Nematodes are ubiquitous in terrestrial
soils and trophic or functional groups of
nematodes are present at several critical
positions in the  soilfood  web.  Addition-
ally, the abundance  and  size of nema-
todes  makes  sampling  easier  and less
costly than for other microflora and fauna.
Nematode community structure, as quan-
tified with one or more ecological indices (
diversity index, maturity index) based upon
trophic groups or families  of nematodes,
is being investigated as a possible indica-
tor of soil biotic diversity or soil "health."
Populations of nematodes in soil samples
(from the  Rotational  Panel Design only)
will be quantified for five trophic groups:
plant parasites,  bacterivores, fungivores,
omnivores, and predators  and index  val-
ues for various aspects  of  community
trophic structure will  be calculated. Spe-
cific indices will include the maturity in-
dex, a measure of degree of community
disturbance, and Shannon's diversity in-
dex—a measure of trophic diversity. Addi-
tionally, samples from 20 rangeland sites
that are paired with sampled fields will be
taken and analyzed in order to compare
trophic diversity and degree of disturbance
of soil communities between tilled fields
and rangeland areas.

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 the USDA-NASS and survey data
 collected by USDA-NASS. Measures  of
 land use will include agricultural land use
 intensity, overall land cover, overall land
 cover diversity,  production land  use, and
 production land  use diversity.

 Agricultural  Pest Management
   Pest management information will be
 collected in the  fall survey questionnaire.
 Information on type and amount of each
 pesticide used on the selected field will be
 collected from the grower. The target in-
 sect pest will also  be identified for each
 insecticide application. In addition, because
 the  Integrated  Pest  Management  (IPM)
 practices are viewed as a  sustainable ag-
 ricultural practice, questions will be asked
 about the farmer's familiarity with the con-
 cepts and practices associated with  IPM.
 The prevalence and spatial distributions
 of IPM practices will be assessed. Pesti-
 cide application  information will be used
 primarily as associative information for the
 indicators of crop productivity and soil bi-
 otic diversity.

 Quality Assurance
   The purpose of quality assurance is to
 ensure that the  data will yield  sound and
 unbiased conclusions related to the prin-
 cipal questions  being addressed. Quality
 Assurance  (QA) for  the  Agrbecosystem
 Program is being developed in conjunc-
 tion with USDA  ARS, NASS, and SCS to
 assure the reliability of measurements. The
 development of  a QA plan is an iterative
 process  and information collected in this
 pilot will enhance future  QA plans. Key
 components of  QA include data  quality
 objectives, standard operating procedures,
 QA project plans, audits,  QA annual re-
 ports, and work plans. Because the ARG
 is a cooperative effort between the EPA,
 ARS, SCS, and  NASS, the ARG will take
 full advantage of QA procedures already
 employed by NASS and SCS.

  Logistics
   Implementation  of the  Agroecosystem
 Pilot Project has required detailed logis-
 tics 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-
                                                                         •&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - SSWWT/HOZW

-------
ity assurance, cost tracking, and review of
logistics.
  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 which will greatly facilitate the col-
lection 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 infrastructure
greatly reduces the resources that would
be needed for the ARG to develop similar
procedures.

Information Management
  The Agroecosystem  1993  Pilot Field
Program will require that data be obtained,
stored, manipulated, integrated, and ana-
lyzed. New and existing data will come
from many sources, including joint ARG-
NASS  data  collection  efforts,  the SCS
analysis laboratory, the nematode identifi-
cation laboratory, 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. Confidential-
ity of data, and consequently data secu-
rity, are particularly critical issues to the
ARG-NASS  relationship. Privacy of indi-
viduals who  respond to NASS data col-
lection efforts is  protected by  law  that
provides for these data being kept confi-
dential and for release  only in an aggre-
gated format that will not enable individual
respondents to be identified. Goals of the
1993 program are to develop fully func-
tional  data documentation facilities, de-
velop  a sampling tracking protocol, and
evaluate data security protocols.

Conclusion
  The Agroecosystem Pilot Field Program
for  1993 in  Nebraska will test concepts
relating  to design, indicator development,
data analysis, quality assurance, logistics,
and information management. A primary
emphasis is  the  development  of  close
working relations between personnel from
NASS,  SCS, and  the  ARG.  This 1993
pilot will have sufficient flexibility to test a
number of innovative approaches. Results
will be utilized to evaluate program com-
ponents essential to the development of
regional and national monitoring programs.
    C. Campbell Is with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC 27606;
     J. Bay, A. Hellkamp, G. Hess, M. Munster, D. Neher, J. Rawlings, and B. Tooley
     are with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606; C. Franks and N.
     Helzerare with the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE27711; G. Olsen
     is with  EG&G,  Idaho Falls, ID 83414; B.  Schumacher is with U.S. EPA's
     Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478.
    Susan £ Franson is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
    The complete report, entitled "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
     Agroecosystem Pilot Field Program Plan—1993," (Order No. PB94-144573/AS;
     Cost: $36.50, subject to change) will be available only from:
           National Technical Information Service
           5285 Port Royal Road
           Springfield, VA 22161
           Telephone: 703-487-4650
    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-93/014

-------