Farm size affects the use of agroecological practices on organic farms in the United States

Liebert, Jeffrey; Benner, Rebecca J.; Kerr, Rachel Bezner; Björkman, Thomas; Master, Kathryn Teigen De; Gennet, Sasha; Gómez, Miguel I.; Hart, Abigail K.; Kremen, Claire; Power, Alison G.; Ryan, Matthew R.

doi:10.1038/s41477-022-01191-1

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Farming communities with these characteristics (e.g., large farm sizes) may be vulnerable to the loss of ecosystem services mediated by the microbiome. For example, Liebert et al (2022) found larger organic farms used fewer agroecological practices including intercropping and reduced tillage. We suggest conventionalized organic farming may be linked with local declines in the microbiome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivating organic farmers to adopt practices that support the pest-suppressive microbiome relies on understanding their beliefs

Bloom,

Atallah,

Casteel

2024

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certified organic farming is a suite of regulated practices that can support social, economic, and ecological sustainability in agriculture. Despite the standardization and regulation of certifying bodies, practices adopted by organic farmers vary with potential heterogeneous effects on environmental outcomes. While it is accepted that beliefs can enable or constrain the adoption of farming practices, it remains unclear if variation in organic farmer beliefs mediates observed heterogeneity in practices and the ecology of farms. Communities of soil microorganisms that induce plant resistance and regulate insect herbivores offer a lens to explore the relationship between beliefs and practice adoption. Variation in insect herbivores across organic farms is common but none have studied the role of farmer beliefs in regulating pests through the soil microbiome. Herein, we hypothesized that variation in adoption of microbiome-supportive practices by organic farmers is driven by heterogeneity in their microbiome beliefs. We also investigate the importance of demographic variables and farm characteristics, compared to farmer beliefs, for adoption of practices that support the microbiome. To test our hypothesis, we surveyed the microbiome beliefs, farming practices, and motivations of 85 organic farmers in New York State, USA. We used affinity propagation to cluster farmers by their beliefs, and statistical models to evaluate variation in farming practice adoption and farmer motivations. Our survey received a 30.5% response rate, most organic farmers (≈96%) believed the soil microbiome was important for supporting plant defenses and reducing pests, and <16% believed their farming practices were unimportant for promoting beneficial microbiomes. Seven clusters of farmers were identified that varied in their microbiome beliefs. Among the clusters ≈42% of farmers believed on-farm management and external factors (e.g., climate change) were important for promoting the microbiome. These farmers used fewer pesticides and synthetic mulches, more pre-planting practices (e.g., solarization), and were more motivated to adopt new practices to support the microbiome than their peers. The most important factors motivating adoption were reductions in pests, increased yields, and biodiversity benefits. Beliefs, demographics, and farm characteristics (e.g., time in organic management) were correlated with similar suites of farming practices, but only beliefs predicted farmer motivations. Our study suggests beliefs are key to understanding farmer motivations and promoting organic farming system sustainability via the pest-suppressive microbiome. More broadly, we suggest the need for socio-ecological approaches that account for farmer beliefs when studying the adoption of conservation practices in agroecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivating organic farmers to adopt practices that support the pest-suppressive microbiome relies on understanding their beliefs

Bloom,

Atallah,

Casteel

2024

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we must also carefully monitor deforestation due to farmland expansion from declining agricultural productivity ( 62 ). The uptake of such schemes relies on communication to and engagement of farmers at the early stages of policy development ( 63 ), but may face continued resistance from large-scale farmers who are less willing or able to change their production ( 64 ). Nevertheless, the widespread availability of synthetic animal protein within the next decade also signals an inevitable decline in the competitiveness of intensive livestock production ( 65 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping potential conflicts between global agriculture and terrestrial conservation

Hoang,

Taherzadeh,

Ohashi

et al. 2023

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demand for food products, often from international trade, has brought agricultural land use into direct competition with biodiversity. Where these potential conflicts occur and which consumers are responsible is poorly understood. By combining conservation priority (CP) maps with agricultural trade data, we estimate current potential conservation risk hotspots driven by 197 countries across 48 agricultural products. Globally, a third of agricultural production occurs in sites of high CP (CP > 0.75, max = 1.0). While cattle, maize, rice, and soybean pose the greatest threat to very high-CP sites, other low-conservation risk products (e.g., sugar beet, pearl millet, and sunflower) currently are less likely to be grown in sites of agriculture–conservation conflict. Our analysis suggests that a commodity can cause dissimilar conservation threats in different production regions. Accordingly, some of the conservation risks posed by different countries depend on their demand and sourcing patterns of agricultural commodities. Our spatial analyses identify potential hotspots of competition between agriculture and high-conservation value sites (i.e., 0.5° resolution, or ~367 to 3,077km 2 , grid cells containing both agriculture and high-biodiversity priority habitat), thereby providing additional information that could help prioritize conservation activities and safeguard biodiversity in individual countries and globally. A web-based GIS tool at https://agriculture.spatialfootprint.com/biodiversity/ systematically visualizes the results of our analyses.

show abstract

“…Technical agronomic support will be critical for such knowledge‐intensive practices, but many farmers need additional assistance to diversify and redesign their operations (Mortensen & Smith, 2020), such as access to regional processing facilities or new markets. In order to shift incremental improvements in on‐farm management toward more transformative agroecosystem redesign (Gliessman, 2016; Liebert et al., 2022; Wezel et al., 2020), participatory, interdisciplinary research (Méndez et al., 2013), in collaboration with farmers and policymakers, will be essential.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Calls to redesign agroecosystems, as part of a strategy to improve the sustainability of agriculture and food systems more broadly, have suggested that farmers use agroecological practices to make transformative on‐farm changes (Gliessman, 2016; Liebert et al., 2022; Wezel et al., 2020). The implementation of agroecological practices, however, is not prescriptive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing organic no‐till planted soybean with cover crop selection and termination timing

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research is needed to develop and optimize agroecological practices that can replace unsustainable managementand increase agricultural diversification. Field experiments were conducted in Maryland and New York to assess the effect of cover crop cultivar selection and cover crop termination soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] planting (roll‐plant) date on cover crop growth stage, biomass, and reseeding; weed biomass; and soybean density and yield in organically managed no‐till planted soybean production. Twelve winter cereal cultivars—four each for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), cereal rye (Secale cereale L.), and triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus.)—were seeded at equivalent densities and terminated at four roll‐plant dates. Although many cover crop cultivars had not yet reached the recommended growth stage for adequate termination (anthesis) at the earlier roll‐plant dates, greater soybean yields and similar cover crop reseeding, compared with later dates, were observed. Weed biomass was low across treatments despite cover crop biomass production below the recommended threshold of 8 Mg ha−1. When pooled over cultivars, triticale performed as well as cereal rye in terms of biomass production, weed suppression, and soybean yield. Within each species, differences in weed biomass and soybean yield were observed among cultivars, but inconsistent across site‐years. Results from this research also show that planting soybean before cover crop anthesis can help maximize yield. Farmers can improve management in cover crop‐based no‐till planted soybean by selecting regionally adapted winter cereal species and cultivars that perform well across a range of outcomes, rather than focusing exclusively on biomass production.

show abstract

Farm size affects the use of agroecological practices on organic farms in the United States

Cited by 26 publications

References 67 publications

Motivating organic farmers to adopt practices that support the pest-suppressive microbiome relies on understanding their beliefs

Motivating organic farmers to adopt practices that support the pest-suppressive microbiome relies on understanding their beliefs

Mapping potential conflicts between global agriculture and terrestrial conservation

Optimizing organic no‐till planted soybean with cover crop selection and termination timing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About