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 ------- |