Advertisement

Designing multifunctional woody polycultures according to landowner preferences in Central Illinois

  • Erik Christian StanekEmail author
  • Sarah Taylor Lovell
  • Ann Reisner
Article

Abstract

Multifunctional woody polycultures (MWPs) are an alternative agricultural practice gaining interest in the U.S. Corn Belt as an option for combining agricultural production and conservation goals. MWPs integrate fruit, nut, timber, and/or bioenergy crops adjacent to annual crops. Previous studies revealed that landowners lack adequate information to make informed decisions regarding the adoption of MWPs. Following up on that work, this study engaged with 15 rural landowners in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed of Central Illinois to identify their design preferences, their information needs, and the adoption potential for MWPs. Landowner-specific designs were constructed based on three predefined alternative scenarios distinguished by their focus on: (1) production, (2) conservation, or (3) cultural functions. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with landowners before and after the design process. Results from quantitative analysis and qualitative interpretation showed landowners preferred designs that integrated high levels of edible nuts and berries in an efficient, machine-harvestable arrangement. Nut-producing species, notably northern-adapted varieties of pecan (Carya illinoinensis), were the most preferred. The most influential motivators for the design and adoption of MWPs were utilizing high-value edible crops, improving pollinator and wildlife habitat, and increasing productivity of marginal land. While important, landowners felt these motivators still did not overcome limitations in the practical application of MWPs due to a lack of harvest machinery, of post-harvest processing facilities, and of accessible markets. The study findings demonstrate that a lack of reliable economic, marketing, and management information severely constrains the adoption potential of MWPs despite landowner interest in using MWPs on marginal lands.

Keywords

Multifunctional woody polycultures Landowner Preferences Design Scenarios Visualizations Participatory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Award No. 2014-68006-22041. The Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council provided additional funding and support. We owe so much to the cooperation and interest of all our participants in this study. Our work absolutely depended on our participants’ willingness to share their thoughts, insight, and life goals.

References

  1. Adebiyi J, Schmitt Olabisi L, Snapp S (2016) Understanding perennial wheat adoption as a transformative technology: evidence from the literature and farmers. Renew Agric Food Syst 31:101–110.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahern J (2006) Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning. Aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbuckle JG (2013) Farmer attitudes toward proactive targeting of agricultural conservation programs. Soc Nat Resour 26:625–641.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.671450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arbuckle JG, Valdivia C, Raedeke A et al (2009) Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agrofor Syst 75:73–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9131-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atwell R, Schulte L, Westphal L (2009a) Linking resilience theory and diffusion of innovations theory to understand the potential for perennials in the U.S. Corn Belt. Ecol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-02787-140130 Google Scholar
  6. Atwell RC, Schulte LA, Westphal LM (2009b) Landscape, community, countryside: linking biophysical and social scales in US Corn Belt agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 24:791–806.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9358-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atwell RC, Schulte LA, Westphal LM (2010) How to build multifunctional agricultural landscapes in the U.S. Corn Belt: add perennials and partnerships. Land Use Policy 27:1082–1090.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbieri C, Mahoney E (2009) Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment strategy? Insights from Texas farmers and ranchers. J Rural Stud 25:58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010) Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry diffusion. Agrofor Syst 79:5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9269-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baumgart-Getz A, Prokopy LS, Floress K (2012) Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J Environ Manage 96:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandes E, McNunn GS, Schulte LA et al (2016) Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for cropland diversification. Environ Res Lett 11:014009.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cardoso IM, Guijt I, Franco FS et al (2001) Continual learning for agroforestry system design: university, NGO and farmer partnership in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agric Syst 69:235–257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00028-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cernusca MM, Gold MA, Godsey LD (2012) Using the porter model to analyze the US elderberry industry. Agrofor Syst 86:365–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9546-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cope MA, McLafferty S, Rhoads BL (2011) Farmer attitudes toward production of perennial energy grasses in East Central Illinois: implications for community-based decision making. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101:852–862.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.575320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dosskey M, Wells G, Bentrup G, Wallace D (2012) Enhancing ecosystem services: designing for multifunctionality. J Soil Water Conserv 67:37A–41A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.67.2.37A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X et al (2013) Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 493:514–517.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gold MA, Godsey LD, Josiah SJ (2004) Markets and marketing strategies for agroforestry specialty products in North America. Agrofor Syst 61–62:371–384.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029011.42829.83 Google Scholar
  20. Green TR, Kipka H, David O, McMaster GS (2018) Where is the USA Corn Belt, and how is it changing? Sci Total Environ 618:1613–1618.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haggar J, Ayala A, Díaz B, Reyes CU (2001) Participatory design of agroforestry systems: developing farmer participatory research methods in Mexico. Dev Practice 11:417–424.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520120066701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James LK, Swinton SM, Thelen KD (2010) Profitability analysis of cellulosic energy crops compared with corn. Agron J 102:675–687.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jose S, Gold MA, Garrett HE (2012) The future of temperate agroforestry in the United States. In: Nair PKR, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry—the future of global land use. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 217–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang S, Post W, Wang D et al (2013) Hierarchical marginal land assessment for land use planning. Land Use Policy 30:106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keefer L, Bauer E (2011) Upper Sangamon River watershed monitoring data for the USEPA targeted watershed study: 2005–2008. ISWS Contract Report 2011-03Google Scholar
  26. Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32:25–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Landis DA (2017) Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Gal P-Y, Dugué P, Faure G, Novak S (2011) How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review. Agric Syst 104:714–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin BB (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 61:183–193.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovell ST, Johnston DM (2009) Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Front Ecol Environ 7:212–220.  https://doi.org/10.1890/070178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovell ST, Dupraz C, Gold M et al (2018) Temperate agroforestry research: considering multifunctional woody polycultures and the design of long-term field trials. Agrofor Syst 92:1397–1415.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0087-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch L, Brown C (2000) Landowner decision making about riparian buffers. J Agric Appl Econ 32:585–596.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800020678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacDonald JM, Korb P, Hoppe RA (2013) Farm size and the organization of U.S. crop farming. USDA ERS ERR-152Google Scholar
  34. Masters MD, Black CK, Kantola IB et al (2016) Soil nutrient removal by four potential bioenergy crops: Zea mays, Panicum virgatum, Miscanthus × giganteus, and prairie. Agr Ecosyst Environ 216:51–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mattia CM, Lovell ST, Fraterrigo J (2018a) Identifying marginal land for multifunctional perennial cropping systems in the Upper Sangamon River watershed, Illinois. J Soil Water Conserv 73:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mattia CM, Lovell ST, Davis A (2018b) Identifying barriers and motivators for adoption of multifunctional perennial cropping systems by landowners in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed, Illinois. Agrofor Syst 92:1115–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0053-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGinty MM, Swisher ME, Alavalapati J (2008) Agroforestry adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors. Agrofor Syst 73:99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9114-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meynard J-M, Jeuffroy M-H, Le Bail M et al (2017) Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agric Syst 157:330–339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montgomery DR (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:13268–13272.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611508104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mori GO, Gold M, Jose S (2017) Specialty crops in temperate agroforestry systems: sustainable management, marketing and promotion for the Midwest region of the U.S.A. In: Montagnini F (ed) Integrating landscapes: agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty. Springer, Cham, pp 331–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 19:343–356.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030666.55372.ae CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23:633–644.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nassauer JI, Dowdell JA, Wang Z et al (2011) Iowa farmers’ responses to transformative scenarios for Corn Belt agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv 66:18A–24A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.1.18A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliver DM, Fish RD, Winter M et al (2012) Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environ Model Softw 36:76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang J-C (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57:173–186.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809108210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reimer A, Thompson A, Prokopy LS, Arbuckle JG et al (2014) People, place, behavior, and context: A research agenda for expanding our understanding of what motivates farmers’ conservation behaviors. J Soil Water Conserv 69:57A–61A.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.57A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richards B, Stoof C, Cary I, Woodbury P (2014) Reporting on marginal lands for bioenergy feedstock production: a modest proposal. BioEnergy Res 7:1060–1062.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9408-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robertson GP (2015) A sustainable agriculture? Daedalus J Am Acad Arts Sci 144:76–89.  https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00355 Google Scholar
  50. Roesch-McNally GE, Arbuckle JG, Tyndall JC (2018) Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: the case of crop diversification in the U.S. corn belt. Global Environ Chang 48:206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan RL, Erickson DL, Young RD (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Environ Plan Manage 46:19–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713676702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schulte LA, Asbjornsen H, Liebman M, Crow TR (2006) Agroecosystem restoration through strategic integration of perennials. J Soil Water Conserv 61:164A–169AGoogle Scholar
  54. Steinitz C, Anderson R, Arias H et al (2005) Alternative futures for landscapes in the Upper San Pedro River Basin of Arizona and Sonora. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international partners in flight conference, 20–24 March 2002, Asilomar, California, vol 1. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research StationGoogle Scholar
  55. Strong NA, Jacobson MG (2005) Assessing agroforestry adoption potential utilising market segmentation: a case study in Pennsylvania. Small Scale For 4:215–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-005-0014-9 Google Scholar
  56. Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA et al (2009) Beneficial biofuels—the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325:270–271.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tress B, Tress G (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan 64:161–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00219-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL (2014a) Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry Riparian buffers. Agrofor Syst 88:619–629.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9678-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL, Aust WM (2014b) Potential adoption of agroforestry riparian buffers based on landowner and streamside characteristics. J Soil Water Conserv 69:140–150.  https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. USDA NASS (2012) Census of agriculture: quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed 2 Apr 2018
  61. USDA NASS (2017) Cropscape cropland data layer. https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/. Accessed 5 Feb 2017
  62. Valdivia C, Poulos C (2008) Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agrofor Syst 75:61–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9129-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Valdivia C, Barbieri C, Gold MA (2012) Between forestry and farming: policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Can J Agric Econ 60:155–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01248.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verdade LM, Piña CI, Rosalino LM (2015) Biofuels and biodiversity: challenges and opportunities. Environ Dev 15:64–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wells GR, Fribourg HA, Schlarbaum SE et al (2003) Alternate land uses for marginal soils. J Soil Water Conserv 58:73–81Google Scholar
  66. Werling BP, Dickson TL, Isaacs R et al (2014) Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:1652–1657.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1309492111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. White EM (2010) Woody biomass for bioenergy and biofuels in the United States: a briefing paper. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolz KJ, Lovell ST, Branham BE et al (2017) Frontiers in alley cropping: transformative solutions for temperate agriculture. Glob Change Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13986 Google Scholar
  69. Wright CK, Wimberly MC (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. PNAS 110:4134–4139.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215404110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Crop Sciences, Plant Science LabUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Media and Cinema StudiesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations