The LTAR cropland common experiment in the Lower Mississippi River Basin.

The Lower Mississippi River Basin-Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Site (LMRB-LTAR) encompasses six states from Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico and is coordinated by the USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS. The overarching goal of LTAR is to assess regionally diverse and geographically scalable farming practices for enhanced sustainability of agroecosystem goods and services under changing environment and resource-use conditions. The LMRB-LTAR overall goal is to assess sustainable row crop agricultural production systems that integrate regional environmental and socioeconomic needs. Primary row crops in the region include soybeans, corn, cotton, rice, and sugarcane with crop rotations influenced by commodity crop price and other factors. The field-scale common experiment (CE) includes four row crop farms (26-101 ha) established in 2021 and 2023. Three fields are managed with alternative practices, including reduced tillage, cover crops, and automated prescription irrigation, and three fields are managed with prevailing farming practices, consisting of conventional tillage, no cover crop, and nonprescription irrigation. Treatment effects on crop productivity, soil quality, water use efficiency, water quality, and carbon storage are assessed. Research from the LMRB CE will deliver outcomes linked to overarching LTAR network goals, including innovative agricultural systems, strengthened partnerships, data management technologies, and precision environmental tools.

Quantitative Representativeness and Constituency of the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Network and Analysis of Complementarity with Existing Ecological Networks.

Studies conducted at sites across ecological research networks usually strive to scale their results to larger areas, trying to reach conclusions that are valid throughout larger enclosing regions. Network representativeness and constituency can show how well conditions at sampling locations represent conditions also found elsewhere and can be used to help scale-up results over larger regions. Multivariate statistical methods have been used to design networks and select sites that optimize regional representation, thereby maximizing the value of datasets and research. However, in networks created from already established sites, an immediate challenge is to understand how well existing sites represent the range of environments in the whole area of interest. We performed an analysis to show how well sites in the USDA Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network represent all agricultural working lands within the conterminous United States (CONUS). Our analysis of 18 LTAR sites, based on 15 climatic and edaphic characteristics, produced maps of representativeness and constituency. Representativeness of the LTAR sites was quantified through an exhaustive pairwise Euclidean distance calculation in multivariate space, between the locations of experiments within each LTAR site and every 1 km cell across the CONUS. Network representativeness is from the perspective of all CONUS locations, but we also considered the perspective from each LTAR site. For every LTAR site, we identified the region that is best represented by that particular site-its constituency-as the set of 1 km grid locations best represented by the environmental drivers at that particular LTAR site. Representativeness shows how well the combination of characteristics at each CONUS location was represented by the LTAR sites' environments, while constituency shows which LTAR site was the closest match for each location. LTAR representativeness was good across most of the CONUS. Representativeness for croplands was higher than for grazinglands, probably because croplands have more specific environmental criteria. Constituencies resemble ecoregions but have their environmental conditions "centered" on those at particular existing LTAR sites. Constituency of LTAR sites can be used to prioritize the locations of experimental research at or even within particular sites, or to identify the extents that can likely be included when generalizing knowledge across larger regions of the CONUS. Sites with a large constituency have generalist environments, while those with smaller constituency areas have more specialized environmental combinations. These "specialist" sites are the best representatives for smaller, more unusual areas. The potential of sharing complementary sites from the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) to boost representativeness was also explored. LTAR network representativeness would benefit from borrowing several NEON sites and the Sevilleta LTER site. Later network additions must include such specialist sites that are targeted to represent unique missing environments. While this analysis exhaustively considered principal environmental characteristics related to production on working lands, we did not consider the focal agronomic systems under study, or their socio-economic context.

Uncertainty in phosphorus fluxes and budgets across the US long-term agroecosystem research network.

Phosphorus (P) budgets can be useful tools for understanding nutrient cycling and quantifying the effectiveness of nutrient management planning and policies; however, uncertainties in agricultural nutrient budgets are not often quantitatively assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate uncertainty in P fluxes (fertilizer/manure application, atmospheric deposition, irrigation, crop removal, surface runoff, and leachate) and the propagation of these uncertainties to annual P budgets. Data from 56 cropping systems in the P-FLUX database, which spans diverse rotations and landscapes across the United States and Canada, were evaluated. Results showed that across cropping systems, average annual P budget was 22.4 kg P ha-1 (range = -32.7 to 340.6 kg P ha-1 ), with an average uncertainty of 13.1 kg P ha-1 (range = 1.0-87.1 kg P ha-1 ). Fertilizer/manure application and crop removal were the largest P fluxes across cropping systems and, as a result, accounted for the largest fraction of uncertainty in annual budgets (61% and 37%, respectively). Remaining fluxes individually accounted for <2% of the budget uncertainty. Uncertainties were large enough that determining whether P was increasing, decreasing, or not changing was inconclusive in 39% of the budgets evaluated. Findings indicate that more careful and/or direct measurements of inputs, outputs, and stocks are needed. Recommendations for minimizing uncertainty in P budgets based on the results of the study were developed. Quantifying, communicating, and constraining uncertainty in budgets among production systems and multiple geographies is critical for engaging stakeholders, developing local and national strategies for P reduction, and informing policy.

Indicators of water use efficiency across diverse agroecosystems and spatiotemporal scales.

Understanding the relationship between water and production within and across agroecosystems is essential for addressing several agricultural challenges of the 21st century: providing food, fuel, and fiber to a growing human population, reducing the environmental impacts of agricultural production, and adapting food systems to climate change. Of all human activities, agriculture has the highest demand for water globally. Therefore, increasing water use efficiency (WUE), or producing 'more crop per drop', has been a long-term goal of agricultural management, engineering, and crop breeding. WUE is a widely used term applied across a diverse array of spatial scales, spanning from the leaf to the globe, and over temporal scales ranging from seconds to months to years. The measurement, interpretation, and complexity of WUE varies enormously across these spatial and temporal scales, challenging comparisons within and across diverse agroecosystems. The goals of this review are to evaluate common indicators of WUE in agricultural production and assess tradeoffs when applying these indicators within and across agroecosystems amidst a changing climate. We examine three questions: (1) what are the uses and limitations of common WUE indicators, (2) how can WUE indicators be applied within and across agroecosystems, and (3) how can WUE indicators help adapt agriculture to climate change? Addressing these agricultural challenges will require land managers, producers, policy makers, researchers, and consumers to evaluate costs and benefits of practices and innovations of water use in agricultural production. Clearly defining and interpreting WUE in the most scale-appropriate way is crucial for advancing agroecosystem sustainability.