Are there universal soil responses to cover cropping? A systematic review.

Cover cropping is commonly acknowledged to promote soil health in agriculture. However, contradictory findings on the benefits of cover crops for soil health, crop productivity, economic and ecological factors, as well as the influence of inherent soil parameters on such benefits exist in the scientific literature. Here, we critically assessed evidence of cover crop benefits through a systematic review of the published literature. To access relevant papers, we searched the literature for cover crops and soil health indicators using Scopus (1996-2020), ScienceDirect (1996-2020) and Google scholar (1970-1996) with specific keywords and combinations. Only English research papers including experimental plots and control groups were considered. We analyzed 102 unique peer-reviewed papers and 1494 corresponding unique plots encompassing various cover crops, soil textures, climates, management systems and experimental duration (1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-10 years and over 10 years). Strong evidence suggests that cover crops can enhance soil structure and promote soil health by improving soil physical and chemical properties, including saturated hydraulic conductivity (mean net change of 105.6 %), total organic carbon (10.1 %), and total nitrogen (20.2 %). On the other hand, cover crops exhibit weak effects on properties like bulk density and microporosity with fairly low values of net change. In most cases, cover crops increase the soil carbon content, including microbial biomass carbon (19.5 %) and particulate organic carbon (49.5 %). In this systematic review, we found limited studies on the effect of cover crops on soil health as influenced by soil texture, regional climate, rainfall and duration of the cover crop practices. The paucity of long-term regional systematic research of soil physics, chemistry and biology makes it difficult to forecast future implications of cover crops on soil health indicators.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems: Environmental Exposure and Human Health Risks.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are highly persistent synthetic organic contaminants that can cause serious human health concerns such as obesity, liver damage, kidney cancer, hypertension, immunotoxicity and other human health issues. Integrated crop-livestock systems combine agricultural crop production with milk and/or meat production and processing. Key sources of PFAS in these systems include firefighting foams near military bases, wastewater sludge and industrial discharge. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances regularly move from soils to nearby surface water and/or groundwater because of their high mobility and persistence. Irrigating crops or managing livestock for milk and meat production using adjacent waters can be detrimental to human health. The presence of PFAS in both groundwater and milk have been reported in dairy production states (e.g., Wisconsin and New Mexico) across the United States. Although there is a limit of 70 parts per trillion of PFAS in drinking water by the U.S. EPA, there are not yet regional screening guidelines for conducting risk assessments of livestock watering as well as the soil and plant matrix. This systematic review includes (i) the sources, impacts and challenges of PFAS in integrated crop-livestock systems, (ii) safety measures and protocols for sampling soil, water and plants for determining PFAS concentration in exposed integrated crop-livestock systems and (iii) the assessment, measurement and evaluation of human health risks related to PFAS exposure.

Mentorship, equity, and research productivity: lessons from a pandemic.

The coronavirus pandemic is more fully exposing ubiquitous economic and social inequities that pervade conservation science. In this time of prolonged stress on members of the research community, primary investigators or project leaders (PLs) have a unique opportunity to adapt their programs to jointly create more equitable and productive research environments for their teams. Institutional guidance for PLs pursuing field and laboratory work centers on the physical safety of individuals while in the lab or field, but largely ignores the vast differences in how team members may be experiencing the pandemic. Strains on mental, physical, and emotional health; racial trauma; familial responsibilities; and compulsory productivity resources, such as high-speed internet, quiet work spaces, and support are unequally distributed across team members. The goal of this paper is to summarize the shifting dynamics of leadership and mentorship during the coronavirus pandemic and highlight opportunities for increasing equity in conservation research at the scale of the project team. Here, we (1) describe how the pandemic differentially manifests inequity on project teams, particularly for groups that have been structurally excluded from conservation science, (2) consider equitable career advancement during the coronavirus pandemic, and (3) offer suggestions for PLs to provide mentorship that prioritizes equity and wellbeing during and beyond the pandemic. We aim to support PLs who have power and flexibility in how they manage research, teaching, mentoring, consulting, outreach, and extension activities so that individual team members' needs are met with compassion and attention to equity.

Observation of irrigation-induced climate change in the Midwest United States.

Irrigated agriculture alters near-surface temperature and humidity, which may mask global climate change at the regional scale. However, observational studies of irrigation-induced climate change are lacking in temperate, humid regions throughout North America and Europe. Despite unknown climate impacts, irrigated agriculture is expanding in the Midwest United States, where unconfined aquifers provide groundwater to support crop production on coarse soils. This is the first study in the Midwest United States to observe and quantify differences in regional climate associated with irrigated agricultural conversion from forests and rainfed agriculture. To this end, we established a 60 km transect consisting of 28 stations across varying land uses and monitored surface air temperature and relative humidity for 31 months in the Wisconsin Central Sands region. We used a novel approach to quantify irrigated land use in both space and time with a database containing monthly groundwater withdrawal estimates by parcel for the state of Wisconsin. Irrigated agriculture decreased maximum temperatures and increased minimum temperatures, thus shrinking the diurnal temperature range (DTR) by an average of 3°C. Irrigated agriculture also decreased the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) by an average of 0.10 kPa. Irrigated agriculture significantly decreased evaporative demand for 25% and 66% of study days compared to rainfed agriculture and forest, respectively. Differences in VPD across the land-use gradient were highest (0.21 kPa) during the peak of the growing season, while differences in DTR were comparable year-round. Interannual variability in temperature had greater impacts on differences in DTR and VPD across the land-use gradient than interannual variability in precipitation. These regional climate changes must be considered together with increased greenhouse gas emissions, changes to groundwater quality, and surface water degradation when evaluating the costs and benefits of groundwater-sourced irrigation expansion in the Midwest United States and similar regions around the world.