The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Opportunities and challenges in the eastern United States

Duncan, J. M.; Respess, Zachary; Ryan, W. Carson; Austin, Robert; Royer, Matthew B.; Osmond, Deanna L.; Kleinman, Peter J. A.

doi:10.1002/ael2.20054

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The utility of deliberative and actionable conservation planning information provided by decision support tools such as the ACPF and the ACPF FiNRT depend on the quality of the modeling and the output (Duncan et al., 2021). Because the ACPF is not a temporally dynamic process model but rather a heuristic planning tool, the modes of validation and verification are largely based on examining whether the model is accurately identifying areas of resource concern and potential locations for BMPs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool: A planning tool for cost effective conservation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have developed an add‐on tool for use with the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) that features a multistate financial analysis and field‐scale nitrogen (N) reduction tool for use when analyzing different ACPF conservation scenarios. Financial and expected field‐scale N loss data are used to calculate total long‐term cost and cost effectiveness of various conservation plans. Unique to the ACPF Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool is the ability to identify individual treatment areas for each practice evaluated, allowing users to create combinatorial conservation planning scenarios drawing from multiple ACPF‐identified conservation practices. Financial data account for direct long‐term annualized costs for best management practice (BMP) installation and management in Iowa and Minnesota. Opportunity costs of BMPs that retire cropland are spatially determined according to weighted‐average crop productivity indices and land rent relationships. The tool quantifies the N requirements for each field, based on 6‐yr land‐use data, and evaluates the proportion of N likely to be lost from the field as nitrate load via leaching. Financial analyses that can be accomplished by using the ACPF are illustrated in case study watershed scenarios in Iowa and Minnesota. In Iowa, featured scenarios range from 26 to 31% reduction in total nitrate, for a total cost between US$0.580 million and $2.3 million per year, respectively. In Minnesota, example scenarios range from 28 to 51% total nitrate reduction, for total costs of $1.7 million to $2.1 million per year. Tradeoffs in BMP selection related to N reduction outcome and cost are also demonstrated.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool: A planning tool for cost effective conservation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ACPF tool proved a useful means of identifying potential build sites. ACPF is freely available and being used throughout the Midwest (Ranjan et al 2019;Tomer and Nelson 2020;Duncan et al 2021;Respess and Duncan 2021). We suggest that exploring potential wetland locations provided by ACPF results can be advantageous prior to performing subbasin discretization in SWAT for modeling constructed wetlands.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing constructed wetlands for nutrient reduction at watershed scale: Opportunity to link models and real-world execution

Nietch,

Hawley,

Safwat

et al. 2024

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ACPF can be run in other geographic regions but requires the user to locate the required input data and standardize it to formats required by ACPF. Outputs must be carefully assessed in the local context to ensure results are accurately applied (Duncan et al 2021, Respess and. ACPF FiNRT is currently only available in Iowa and Minnesota .…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying environmental, economic, and equity opportunities through a spatial lens

Summers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt has become highly specialized, efficiently growing two crops, corn and soybeans, and concentrated livestock production. However, this specialization -and the management system it encourages -has caused negative environmental externalities. For example, beneficial insects and wildlife, their habitat, and water quality have all declined as agricultural production has simplified and expanded on the landscape. Solutions exist to address those negative externalities by incorporating conservation and native perennial cover into the landscape. Nonetheless, these solutions often contradict the traditional productivist norms of agriculture and have other tangible barriers (e.g., cost or alignment with the production system). This dissertation used spatial analysis methods to identify opportunities for environmental, economic, and equitable improvement across the landscape. It included three studies evaluating biophysical, economic, and social factors for conservation practice implementation. In an effort to expand the breadth of analysis, the final chapter focused on social equity at a national extent for environmental resource provisioning.To identify where win-win scenarios for ecosystem services (i.e., nitrate reduction for enhanced water quality) and economic benefits to a landowner exist, three case study watersheds were analyzed to determine whether and how often conservation practices to address nitrate reduction and water quality overlapped with unprofitable subfield areas. The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) and Iowa State Ag Decision Maker financial data were used to identify overlaps between water quality-focused conservation practice placement and unprofitable subfield areas. Approximately 30% of the study area had co-occurring economic and environmental benefits that resulted in a win-win scenario. In the remaining 70% of the study area, trade-offs existed between increasing whole-field profitability and improvements to water quality. While conservation in unprofitable areas tended to be more cost-effective, it did not always differ significantly from implementing conservation practices in profitable areas.

show abstract

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Opportunities and challenges in the eastern United States

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool: A planning tool for cost effective conservation

The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework Financial and Nutrient Reduction Tool: A planning tool for cost effective conservation

Implementing constructed wetlands for nutrient reduction at watershed scale: Opportunity to link models and real-world execution

Identifying environmental, economic, and equity opportunities through a spatial lens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About