p rairiestrips.org

1. Integration of Prairie Strips into Agricultural Landscapes to Enhance Ecosystem Services: Water Quality Benefits 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 10% 10% 0% 20% corn - soybean row crops, ZERO TILLAGE reconstructed prairie

5. STRIPS: Science-based Trials of Row-crops Integrated with PrairiesNeal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Prairie City, IA12 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 *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… Photo: A. MacDonald

19. Matt Helmers Associate Professor Ag and BiosystemsEng. Iowa State University (515)-294-6717 mhelmers@iastate.edu prairiestrips.org

20. Vegetation in strips, 2008-2011 Plant diversity in the strips is increasing, especially for native perennial species. Time effects: p<0.0001 for each response. Hirsh et al., 2013

21. Cover by dominant species in strips, 2011 • Kentucky and Canada bluegrass, Poapratensis/compresa, 25.1% • Canada goldenrod, Solidagocanadensis, 11.6% • Gray-headed coneflower, Ratibidapinnata, 6.5% • Queen Anne’s lace, Daucuscarota, 6.4% • Indiangrass, Sorghastrumnutans, 5.6% • Wild bergamot, Monardafistulosa, 4.5% • Big bluestem, Andropogongerardii, 4.3% • Smooth brome, Bromusinermis, 4.0% • Hairy aster, Aster pilosus, 3.7% • Reed canary grass, Phalarisarundinacea, 3.1% • Ox-eye, Heliopsishelianthoides, 3.1% (native perennials) Hirsh et al., 2013

22. 52 species overall 11species nesting A. MacDonald

23. Total Bird Abundance (TBA) Range = 0-33 individuals Mean = 5 A. MacDonald, unpublished data

24. Species Richness Range = 0-14 Species Mean = 2.6 A. MacDonald, unpublished data

25. 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

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 All crop 10% bottom 20% contour All crop 10% contour 10% bottom 20% contour 10% contour M. Maier, unpublished data

27. Average Cost of Strips to Farmers Site prep & planting costs… ≤ 10% of total cost Cost calculation assumption: One acre of prairie “treats” the run-off from about 9 acres of row crops + ~ 10% - 15% of total cost Management costs… + Upwards of ~ 90% 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 Opportunity Cost of land = foregone rent or revenue Keep in mind that cost scale with opportunity costs

28. Matthew J. Helmers1, Lisa Schulte-Moore2, J. Arbuckle3, Pauline Drobney4, Mary Harris2, Randall K. Kolka5, Matt Liebman6, Matt O'Neal7and 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 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