Integration of Prairie Strips into Agricultural Landscapes to Enhance Ecosystem Services: Water Quality Benefits It’s all about multifunctionality… and as we search for solutions to improve water and soil quality, and conserve biodiversity, the STRIPs project is showing that prairie is an important tool to keep in our conservation practice toolbox. prairiestrips.org

Funding Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences USDA-NCR-SARE USDA-NIFA-AFRI-Managed Ecosystems University of Iowa

Evaluation of Ecosystems Services in Mixed Annual-Perennial Agroecosystems Hypothesis: Strategic placement of small amounts of perennial cover within agriculturally-dominated landscapes will have disproportionate benefits on biophysical and socioeconomic systems To address this hypothesis we have four components: Ecohydrology Biodiversity Socioeconomic Educational and Extension

Experimental Watershed Treatments 12 watersheds: Balanced Incomplete Block Design: 3 reps X 4 treatments X 3 blocks 0% 10% 10% 20% corn - soybean row crops, ZERO TILLAGE reconstructed prairie

STRIPS: Science-based Trials of Row-crops Integrated with Prairies Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Prairie City, IA 12 experimental watersheds, 0.5 to 3.2 ha each, 6 to 10% slope Four treatments: 100% crop (no-till) 10% buffer, at toe slope 10% buffer, in contour strips 20% buffer, in contour strips

Site History Watersheds under primarily bromegrass cover until fall 2006 Watershed instrumentation: spring 2005 Pre-treatment data collection: 2005 – 2006 field seasons Treatment establishment: fall 2006 & spring 2007 Soybean planted in 2007 Prairie strips sown in July 2007 No-till corn-soybean rotation in cropped areas

Watershed Characteristics   Size (acre) Slope (%) Location and percent of grass filters* Basswood-1 1.3 7.5 10% at footslope Basswood-2 1.2 6.6 5% at footslope and 5% at upslope Basswood-3 6.4 10% at footslope and 10% upslope Basswood-4 1.4 8.2 Basswood-5 3.1 8.9 5% at footslope and 5% upslope Basswood-6 2.1 10.5 All rowcrops Interim-1 7.4 7.7 3.3% at footslope, 3.3% at sideslope, and 3.3% at upslope Interim-2 7.9 6.1 Interim-3 1.8 9.3 Orbweaver-1 2.9 10.3 Orbweaver-2 5.9 6.7 6.7% at footslope, 6.7% at sideslope, and 6.7% at upslope Orbweaver-3 *Percent of grass filters = area of filters / area of watershed

Surface Runoff Monitoring H-flumes monitor movement of water, sediment, and nutrients

Precipitation

Surface Runoff Helmers et al., 2012

Sediment Loss in Runoff (2007-2011) >95% Reduction in sediment export from watersheds with prairie filter strips Helmers et al., 2012

Phosphorus Loss in Runoff (2007-2011) >90% Reduction in TP export from watersheds with prairie filter strips Helmers et al., in press

Total Nitrogen Loss in Runoff (2007-2011) >90% Reduction in TN export from watersheds with prairie filter strips Helmers et al., in press

Nitrate-N Loss in Runoff (2007-2011) Helmers et al., in press

Nitrate-N Concentrations in Groundwater NO3-N concentrations in shallow groundwater at (a) upslope and (b) toeslope positions. Error bars denote the standard deviation of the replicates. Statistical difference of mean nitrate concentration between treatments (grass filters vs. cropland) was indicated for each monitoring period using two significant levels (** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1).

Visual Examples (4 inch rain in June 2008) 10% Prairie 90% Crop 100% Crop 100% Prairie

Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

Integrating prairie into crop fields can blur the lines between production and conservation lands… Strips on the contour, 50m apart Biomass removed yearly (first to control exotics and enchance establishment of natives… 2010 and after: promote prairie growth during subsequent spring) Not just perennials... PRAIRIE :) Site: Orbweaver 2 Photo: A. MacDonald

Matt Helmers Associate Professor Ag and Biosystems Eng. Iowa State University (515)-294-6717 mhelmers@iastate.edu It’s all about multifunctionality… and as we search for solutions to improve water and soil quality, and conserve biodiversity, the STRIPs project is showing that prairie is an important tool to keep in our conservation practice toolbox. prairiestrips.org

Vegetation in strips, 2008-2011 2008 2009 2010 2011 Number of species–all 38 45 51 55 Number of species–native perennials 18 24 29 33 Percent cover–all species 82 75 105 115 Percent cover– native perennials 22 56 67 Plant diversity in the strips is increasing, especially for native perennial species. Time effects: p<0.0001 for each response. Hirsh et al., 2013

Cover by dominant species in strips, 2011 Kentucky and Canada bluegrass, Poa pratensis/compresa, 25.1% Canada goldenrod, Solidago canadensis, 11.6% Gray-headed coneflower, Ratibida pinnata, 6.5% Queen Anne’s lace, Daucus carota, 6.4% Indiangrass, Sorghastrum nutans, 5.6% Wild bergamot, Monarda fistulosa, 4.5% Big bluestem, Andropogon gerardii, 4.3% Smooth brome, Bromus inermis, 4.0% Hairy aster, Aster pilosus, 3.7% Reed canary grass, Phalaris arundinacea, 3.1% Ox-eye, Heliopsis helianthoides, 3.1% (native perennials) Hirsh et al., 2013

52 species 11 species overall nesting A. MacDonald Range: 20-37, average of 29 per year A. MacDonald

Total Bird Abundance (TBA) Range = 0-33 individuals Mean = 5 Don’t forget to explain axes! REMINDER ABOUT 2011 and 2012! A. MacDonald, unpublished data

Species Richness Range = 0-14 Species Mean = 2.6 100% prairie… lower doesn’t necessarily mean “not as good” … different species…(?) Possibly more specialist species, like SEWR and GRSP, and less KILL A. MacDonald, unpublished data

Mean percent cover by non-crop species (‘weeds’) in cropped areas, 2009-2011 No significant differences in weed cover among all-crop and diversified watersheds Hirsh et al., 2013

Corn and soybean yields from cropped areas of the catchments were unaffected by the presence or absence of prairie strips. Soybean strips vs. all crop: p=0.95 Corn Strips vs. all crop: p=0.46 10% bottom 10% contour 20% contour All crop 10% bottom 10% contour 20% contour All crop M. Maier, unpublished data

Annualized Total Costs 1 Average Cost of Strips to Farmers Site prep & planting costs… ≤ 10% of total cost Opportunity Cost of land = foregone rent or revenue + Upwards of ~ 90% total cost Management costs… ~ 10% - 15% of total cost 1. 4% discount rate; 15-year management horizon; average Iowa land rent charge. 2. Assumes 1 ac of prairie treats about 9 ac of row crops 3. Represents treated acre costs to farmer after CRP Cost calculation assumption: One acre of prairie “treats” the run-off from about 9 acres of row crops Annualized Total Costs 1 Higher Quality Land (CSR 83) Medium Quality Land (CSR 73) Lower Quality Land (CSR 60) Cost per treated 2 acre ~ $40 ~ $30 ~ $24 Cost per treated acre with CRP 3 $5 $4 $3 Keep in mind that cost scale with opportunity costs

Matthew J. Helmers1, Lisa Schulte-Moore2, J Matthew J. Helmers1, Lisa Schulte-Moore2, J. Arbuckle3, Pauline Drobney4, Mary Harris2, Randall K. Kolka5, Matt Liebman6, Matt O'Neal7 and John Tyndall2 (1) Ag & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (2) Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (3) Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Prairie City, IA (5) USDA Forest Service (FS), Grand Rapids, MN (6) Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (7) Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA It’s all about multifunctionality… and as we search for solutions to improve water and soil quality, and conserve biodiversity, the STRIPs project is showing that prairie is an important tool to keep in our conservation practice toolbox. prairiestrips.org

Conclusions Strategic placement of prairie: Reduced sediment and nutrient loss Increased vegetation diversity Increased bird abundance Did not impact weed pressure Did not impact yield (on a per unit area basis) Is a cost effective strategy compared to other conservation practices