No abstract

Agricultural management practices have impacts not only on crops and livestock, but also on soil, water, wildlife, and ecosystem services. Agricultural research provides evidence about these impacts, but it is unclear how this evidence should be used to make decisions. Two methods are widely used in decision making: evidence synthesis and decision analysis. However, a system of evidence-based decision making that integrates these two methods has not yet been established. Moreover, the standard methods of evidence synthesis have a narrow focus (e.g., the effects of one management practice), but the standard methods of decision analysis have a wide focus (e.g., the comparative effectiveness of multiple management practices). Thus, there is a mismatch between the outputs from evidence synthesis and the inputs that are needed for decision analysis. We show how evidence for a wide range of agricultural practices can be reviewed and summarized simultaneously ("subject-wide evidence synthesis"), and how this evidence can be assessed by experts and used for decision making ("multiple-criteria decision analysis"). We show how these methods could be used by Shackelford et al. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Analysis The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in California to select the best management practices for multiple ecosystem services in Mediterranean-type farmland and rangeland, based on a subject-wide evidence synthesis that was published by Conservation Evidence (www. conservationevidence.com). This method of "evidence-based decision analysis" could be used at different scales, from the local scale (farmers deciding which practices to adopt) to the national or international scale (policy makers deciding which practices to support through agricultural subsidies or other payments for ecosystem services). We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this method, and we suggest some general principles for improving evidence synthesis as the basis for multi-criteria decision analysis.

Shallow, small-rate releases of ethanol-blended fuels from underground storage tanks (USTs) may be quite common and result in subsurface CH 4 generation. However, vadose zone transport of CH 4 generated from these fuel releases is poorly understood, despite the potential to promote vapor intrusion or create explosion hazards. In this study, we simulated shallow CH 4 generation with a controlled subsurface CH 4 release from July 2014 to February 2015 to characterize subsurface CH 4 migration and surface emissions and to determine environmental controls on CH 4 fate and transport. July 2014 through November 2014 was an extended period of drought followed by precipitation during December 2014. Throughout the experiment, under varied CH 4 injection rates, CH 4 formed a radially symmetrical plume around the injection point. Surface efflux during the drought period of the experiment was relatively high and stable, with approximately 10 to 11 and 34 to 52% of injected CH 4 reaching the ground surface during the low-and high-rate injections, respectively. Following the period of precipitation and increased soil moisture, efflux dropped and stabilized at approximately 1% of injected CH 4 , even as soil moisture began to decrease again. Tracer and inhibitor experiments and estimates of soil diffusivity suggest that microbial CH 4 oxidation was responsible for the observed drop in efflux. The decrease in efflux only after soil moisture increased suggests a strong environmental control over the transport and oxidation of vadose zone CH 4 .

2018. Methane-oxidizing bacteria communities shift to attenuate a controlled vadose zone methane release. Vadose Zone J. 17:180089.