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
------- |