Agricultural land use accounts for over 50 percent of the surface area of the contiguous United States. How these lands are managed has direct and indirect implications for wildlife, water quality, and air quality in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems locally and far beyond their extent.
A multi-state (14), multi-regional cooperative effort between USDA and FORT seeks to improve Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) benefit estimates by conducting on-site assessments of fields (~3,000) currently and previously enrolled in the program. FORT furnishes USDA with information evaluating which CRP conservation practices are successfully implemented, which are providing expected benefits for wildlife, and which are persisting after formal contracts have expired. FORT developed an rapid assessment tool to assess wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and adherence to practice requirements that is essential for making estimates of benefits accurate and defensible. More accurate and defensible estimates of the benefits generated by CRP strengthen the case for the 23.5 million acre program and provide a basis for making policy changes that improve it.
Below are publications associated with this project.
Restored agricultural wetlands in Central Iowa: habitat quality and amphibian response
Management of conservation reserve program grasslands to meet wildlife habitat objectives
Grazing effects on aboveground primary production and root biomass of early-seral, mid-seral, and undisturbed semiarid grassland
Grazing effects on plant community succession of early- and mid-seral seeded grassland compared to shortgrass steppe
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contributions to wildlife habitat, management issues, challenges and policy choices--an annotated bibliography
Allelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland establishment
Integrating Agriculture and Conservation
A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands
Effects of the CRP on wildlife habitat: emergency haying in the Midwest and pine plantings in the southeast
Below are partners associated with this project.
- Overview
Agricultural land use accounts for over 50 percent of the surface area of the contiguous United States. How these lands are managed has direct and indirect implications for wildlife, water quality, and air quality in terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems locally and far beyond their extent.
A multi-state (14), multi-regional cooperative effort between USDA and FORT seeks to improve Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) benefit estimates by conducting on-site assessments of fields (~3,000) currently and previously enrolled in the program. FORT furnishes USDA with information evaluating which CRP conservation practices are successfully implemented, which are providing expected benefits for wildlife, and which are persisting after formal contracts have expired. FORT developed an rapid assessment tool to assess wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and adherence to practice requirements that is essential for making estimates of benefits accurate and defensible. More accurate and defensible estimates of the benefits generated by CRP strengthen the case for the 23.5 million acre program and provide a basis for making policy changes that improve it.
This map shows the distribution of select Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields for on-site assessments. (Public domain.) - Publications
Below are publications associated with this project.
Restored agricultural wetlands in Central Iowa: habitat quality and amphibian response
Amphibians are declining throughout the United States and worldwide due, partly, to habitat loss. Conservation practices on the landscape restore wetlands to denitrify tile drainage effluent and restore ecosystem services. Understanding how water quality, hydroperiod, predation, and disease affect amphibians in restored wetlands is central to maintaining healthy amphibian populations in the regionAuthorsRebecca A. Reeves, Clay Pierce, Kelly L. Smalling, Robert W. Klaver, Mark W. Vandever, William A. Battaglin, Erin L. MuthsManagement of conservation reserve program grasslands to meet wildlife habitat objectives
Numerous studies document environmental and social benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This report offers a synopsis of findings regarding effects of establishing CRP conservation practices on the quality and distribution of wildlife habitat in agricultural landscapes. On individual farms, year-round provision of wildlife habitat by the CRP may appear relatively insignificant. HoweAuthorsMark W. Vandever, Arthur W. AllenGrazing effects on aboveground primary production and root biomass of early-seral, mid-seral, and undisturbed semiarid grassland
Annual/perennial and tall/short plant species differentially dominate early to late successional shortgrass steppe communities. Plant species can have different ratios of above-/below-ground biomass distributions and this can be modified by precipitation and grazing. We compared grazing effects on aboveground production and root biomass in early- and mid-seral fields and undisturbed shortgrass steAuthorsD.G. Milchunas, M.W. VandeverGrazing effects on plant community succession of early- and mid-seral seeded grassland compared to shortgrass steppe
Questions: Grazing may speed or slow secondary succession, and the direction may depend on seral stage and relative tolerance of native perennial grasses compared with annual invasive species. How does grazing affect succession where undisturbed communities have a long evolutionary history of grazing by native herbivores and are tolerant to livestock grazing? Location: Shortgrass steppe, North AmeAuthorsDaniel G. Milchunas, Mark W. VandeverConservation Reserve Program (CRP) contributions to wildlife habitat, management issues, challenges and policy choices--an annotated bibliography
The following bibliography presents brief summaries of documents relevant to Conservation Reserve Program relations to wildlife habitat, habitat management in agriculturally dominated landscapes, and conservation policies potentially affecting wildlife habitats in agricultural ecosystems. Because the literature summaries furnished provide only sweeping overviews, users are urged to obtain and evalAuthorsArthur W. Allen, Mark W. VandeverAllelopathic cover crop prior to seeding is more important than subsequent grazing/mowing in grassland establishment
The effects of grazing, mowing, and type of cover crop were evaluated in a previous winter wheat–fallow cropland seeded to grassland under the Conservation Reserve Program in eastern Colorado. Prior to seeding, the fallow strips were planted to forage sorghum or wheat in alternating strips (cover crops), with no grazing, moderate to heavy grazing, and mowing (grazing treatments) superimposed 4 yrAuthorsDaniel G. Milchunas, Mark W. Vandever, Leonard O. Ball, Skip HybergIntegrating Agriculture and Conservation
The USGS produces the needed science-based information to guide management actions and policy decisions that support wildlife habitat and other environmental services compatible with USDA conservation goals and farm operations. The Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) has conducted research involving a national landowner survey and numerous short-AuthorsMark W. VandeverA national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands
A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information about Abstract environmental and social effects of the program on participants, farms, and communities. Of interest were observations concerning wildlife, attitudes about long-term management of program lands, and effectiveness of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assistance in relation to tAuthorsArthur W. Allen, Mark W. VandeverEffects of the CRP on wildlife habitat: emergency haying in the Midwest and pine plantings in the southeast
No abstract available.AuthorsR.L. Hays, A.H. Farmer - Partners
Below are partners associated with this project.