This is a comprehensive review of all published, quantitative studies focused on adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States between 1982 and 2017. This review finds that, taken as a whole, few independent variables have a consistent statistically significant relationship with adoption. Analyses showed that variables positively associated with adoption include the farmer self-identifying primarily as stewardship motivated or otherwise nonfinancially motivated, environmental attitudes, a positive attitude toward the particular program or practice, previous adoption of other conservation practices, seeking and using information, awareness of programs or practices, vulnerable land, greater farm size, higher levels of income and formal education, engaging in marketing arrangements, and positive yield impact expected. Some variables often thought to be important, such as land tenure, did not emerge as consistently important in this cross-study review. Other variables, such as farmers' sense of place, training, presence of institutional conditions supporting adoption, and the role of collective decision making are not measured in enough studies to draw conclusions but potentially have a relationship with adoption decisions. Implications for how to promote conservation adoption and directions for future research are discussed. Because positive attitudes and awareness of conservation programs or practices are positive predictors of adoption, practitioners should share benefits of specific practices and programs and leverage existing practice adoption. Further work to explore relationships between conservation adoption and the role of farmer identity, nuances of land tenure, and the influence of structural factors is needed. Moreover, we suggest that future research should focus on the impact of different messages and avenues of reaching farmers in order to continue to inform conservation practices. Future research should consider both individual and institutional factors that facilitate and constrain adoption.

No abstract

Loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services from agricultural lands remain important challenges in the United States despite decades of spending on natural resource management. To date, conservation investment has emphasized engineering practices or vegetative strategies centered on monocultural plantings of nonnative plants, largely excluding native species from cropland. In a catchment-scale experiment, we quantified the multiple effects of integrating strips of native prairie species amid corn and soybean crops, with prairie strips arranged to arrest run-off on slopes. Replacing 10% of cropland with prairie strips increased biodiversity and ecosystem services with minimal impacts on crop production. Compared with catchments containing only crops, integrating prairie strips into cropland led to greater catchment-level insect taxa richness (2.6-fold), pollinator abundance (3.5-fold), native bird species richness (2.1-fold), and abundance of bird species of greatest conservation need (2.1-fold). Use of prairie strips also reduced total water runoff from catchments by 37%, resulting in retention of 20 times more soil and 4.3 times more phosphorus. Corn and soybean yields for catchments with prairie strips decreased only by the amount of the area taken out of crop production. Social survey results indicated demand among both farming and nonfarming populations for the environmental outcomes produced by prairie strips. If federal and state policies were aligned to promote prairie strips, the practice would be applicable to 3.9 million ha of cropland in Iowa alone.

Agriculture is both vulnerable to climate change impacts and a significant source of greenhouse gases. Increasing agriculture's resilience and reducing its contribution to climate change are societal priorities. Survey data collected from Iowa farmers are analyzed to answer the related research questions: (1) do farmers support adaptation and mitigation actions, and (2) do beliefs and concerns about climate change influence those attitudes. Results indicate that farmers who were concerned about the impacts of climate change on agriculture and attributed it to human activities had more positive attitudes toward both adaptive and mitigative management strategies. Farmers who believed that climate change is not a problem because human ingenuity will enable adaptations and who did not believe climate change is occurring or believed it is a natural phenomenon-a substantial percentage of farmers-tended not to support mitigation.

Cover crops are widely viewed by the soil and water conservation community to be an effective means for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss and increasing soil health, yet relatively few farmers have adopted the practice. Despite the widespread recognition of cover crops' benefits and increased promotional efforts, there have been very few peer-reviewed studies focused on farmer perspectives on or adoption of cover crops. This study, which analyzed data from a survey and in-depth interviews with Iowa farmers, examined the roles that perceived practice characteristics, perspectives on potential facilitating factors, and crop and livestock diversity play in cover crop adoption among Iowa farmers. As expected, perceived benefits were strongly associated with cover crop use. Measures of crop and livestock diversity were also positive predictors of adoption. In addition, farmers who endorsed strengthening of facilitating factors such as educational and technological infrastructure to support cover crop use were more likely to have adopted cover crops. Farmers who perceived higher levels of risks associated with cover crop use, on the other hand, were less likely to use them. Results suggest that research and promotional efforts should focus on both raising awareness of potential benefits and quantifying and communicating potential risks and risk abatement strategies. Helping farmers to better understand (1) the benefits of cover crops and how they can be enhanced, and (2) the potential risks and ways that they can be minimized might allow farmers to more effectively weigh the probable benefits and costs of cover crop use. The findings further suggest that farmers believe that better facilitating infrastructure, in the form of technical assistance (e.g., agricultural retailers and custom operators) and education, is needed to support the widespread adoption of cover crops. Key words: adoption-cover crops-qualitative research-soil health-water qualityCover crops are widely viewed by the soil and water conservation community to be an effective means for reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss and increasing soil health, yet relatively few farmers have adopted the practice. Cover crops are defined as "crops grown primarily for the purpose of protecting and improving soil between periods of regular crop production" (Schnepf and Cox 2006). Cover crops have long been valued for their soil conservation benefits, including reducing erosion, increasing infiltration, and improving soil health (Chatterjee 2013;Kaspar et al. 2001; Kaspar and Singer 2011;Schnepf and Cox 2006). More recently, as agriculture's impact on water quality has become a national concern (CENR 2010;Ribaudo 2011), the potential water quality benefits of cover crops, such as decreasing nitrate (NO 3 ) leaching into surface waters, have been highlighted (Kaspar et al. 2012; Kladivko et al. 2004Kladivko et al. , 2014Strock et al. 2004). Indeed, cover crops are being promoted heavily across the US Corn Belt to address soil and water issues (MCCC 2...

Cover crops are known to promote many aspects of soil and water quality, yet estimates find that in 2012 only 2.3% of the total agricultural lands in the Midwestern USA were using cover crops. Focus groups were conducted across the Corn Belt state of Iowa to better understand how farmers confront barriers to cover crop adoption in highly intensive agricultural production systems. Although much prior research has focused on analyzing factors that help predict cover crop use on farms, there is limited research on how farmers navigate and overcome field-level (e.g. proper planting of a cover crop) and structural barriers (e.g. market forces) associated with the use of cover crops. The results from the analysis of these conversations suggest that there is a complex dialectical relationship between farmers' individual management decisions and the broader agricultural context in the region that constrains their decisions. Farmers in these focus groups shared how they navigate complex management decisions within a generally homogenized agricultural and economic landscape that makes cover crop integration challenging. Many who joined the focus groups have found ways to overcome barriers and successfully integrate cover crops into their cropping systems. This is illustrated through farmers' descriptions of their 'whole system' approach to cover crops management, where they described how they prioritize the success of their cover crops by focusing on multiple aspects of management, including changes they have made to nutrient application and modifications to equipment. These producers also engage with farmer networks to gain strategies for overcoming management challenges associated with cover crops. Although many participants had successfully planted cover crops, they tended to believe that greater economic incentives and/or more diverse crop and livestock markets would be needed to spur more widespread adoption of the practice. Our results further illustrate how structural and field-level barriers constrain individual actions, as it is not simply the basic agronomic considerations (such as seeding and terminating cover crops) that pose a challenge to their use, but also the broader economic and market drivers that exist in agriculturally intensive systems. Our study provides evidence that reducing structural barriers to adoption may be necessary to increase the use of this conservation practice to reduce environmental impacts associated with intensive agricultural production.

Agriculture is vulnerable to climate change and a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Farmers face pressures to adjust agricultural systems to make them more resilient in the face of increasingly variable weather (adaptation) and reduce GHG production (mitigation). This research examines relationships between Iowa farmers’ trust in environmental or agricultural interest groups as sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, perceived climate risks to agriculture, and support for adaptation and mitigation responses. Results indicate that beliefs varied with trust, and beliefs in turn had a significant direct effect on perceived risks from climate change. Support for adaptation varied with perceived risks, while attitudes toward GHG reduction (mitigation) were associated predominantly with variation in beliefs. Most farmers were supportive of adaptation responses, but few endorsed GHG reduction, suggesting that outreach should focus on interventions that have adaptive and mitigative properties (e.g., reduced tillage, improved fertilizer management).

Cropping system diversity can help build greater agroecosystem resilience by suppressing insect, weed, and disease pressures while also mitigating effects of extreme and more variable weather. Despite the potential benefits of cropping systems diversity, few farmers in the US Corn Belt use diverse rotations. This study examines factors that may influence farmers' decisions to use more diversified crop rotations in the US Corn Belt through a parallel convergent mixed methods approach, using a multi-level analysis of Corn Belt farmer survey data (n = 4,778) and in-depth interviews (n = 159). Analyses were conducted to answer questions regarding what factors influence farmers' use of extended crop rotations in intensive corn-based cropping systems and to explore whether farmers in the Corn Belt might use extended crop rotations in response to climatic changes. Findings suggest that path dependency associated with the intensive corn-based cropping system in the region limits farmers' ability to integrate more diverse crop rotations. However, farmers in more diversified watersheds, those who farm marginal land, and those with livestock are more likely to use extended rotations. Additionally, farmers who currently use more diverse rotations are also more likely to plan to use crop rotations as a climate change adaptation strategy. If more diverse cropping systems are desired to reduce climate risks, in addition to reducing the negative impacts associated with industrial agricultural production, then further efforts must be made to facilitate more diverse crop rotations in the U.S. Corn Belt. This may be achieved by adjusting policy and economic incentives that presently discourage cropping system diversity in the region.