1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. Precipitation

10. Surface Runoff
Helmers et al., 2012

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

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

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

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

15. 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).

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

17. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen

18. 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

19. Matt Helmers Associate Professor Ag and Biosystems Eng.
Iowa State University
(515)
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

20. Vegetation in strips,
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< for each response.
Hirsh et al., 2013

21. 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

22. 52 species 11 species overall nesting A. MacDonald
Range: 20-37, average of 29 per year
A. MacDonald

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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