Maximizing the on-farm benefits of cover crops: Comparing management intentions and ecosystem service provisioning

Open Access
- Author:
- Hamilton, Abbe Vohl
- Graduate Program:
- Agronomy
- Degree:
- Master of Science
- Document Type:
- Master Thesis
- Date of Defense:
- February 03, 2016
- Committee Members:
- David A Mortensen, Thesis Advisor/Co-Advisor
- Keywords:
- Cover crops
rapid ecosystem assessment
ecosystem services
multifuntionality
farmer perspective - Abstract:
- Cover crops are gaining in popularity due to efforts from both conservation organizations and farmers for the multiple ecosystem services they can improve. Much is known with regards to ecosystem service provisioning from cover crops, but the information comes mainly from highly controlled field experiments. Published information on farmers’ cover cropping practices and perspectives are almost exclusively conducted with Midwestern farmers. The purposes of this study were to: 1) Compare farmers’ intentions for planting cover crops and their perceptions of cover crop performance to the cover crops’ measured provisioning of ecosystem services, and 2) Characterize east coast attitudes and practices with regards to cover cropping. Farmers representing 47 dairy, grain, or vegetable farms in Pennsylvania participated in a farmer survey that included on-farm cover crop sampling between fall 2014 and spring 2015. They selected between one and five of their farm’s cover cropped fields for analysis, and recorded their intentions for planting those cover crops upon planting, and their perceptions of the field’s contributions upon spring termination. The species, biomass and nutrient content of the cover crop at time of termination were used to calculate the field’s potential contributions to five ecosystem services: organic matter provision, erosion reduction, weed suppression, nitrogen provision and nitrogen scavenging. Each field’s intention, perception and ecosystem service assessment ratings were compared for correlations. Farmers did not appear to be able to control the level of ecosystem services their cover crop provided to any precise degree: 40-60% of the fields in the study either over or under-contributed as compared to the farmer’s intended level of ecosystem service provisioning for any given ecosystem service. Farmers were also unable to match their perceptions of outcomes to actual measured outcomes for any ecosystem service other than on the most highly productive fields. The ecosystem services erosion control and N scavenging appeared to be easier to obtain than N provision, weed control or soil organic matter (SOM) provisioning. The results of this study suggest that further educational efforts for cover cropping should help farmers link intangible ecosystem services to visual indicators; justify management for extended duration of living cover over maximizing biomass; and reinforce the fact that successful management for ecosystem services can be accomplished in myriad ways. This information would encourage further planting of cover crops, more accurate perceptions of cover crop performance, and greater overall satisfaction with the practice.