Environ. Sci. Technol.

2009, 43, 8011–8015

Crop Residues: The Rest of the

USDA
Story
DOUGLAS L. KARLEN*
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research
Service (USDA-ARS) National Soil Tilth Laboratory (NSTL),
Ames, Iowa

RATTAN LAL
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

RONALD F. FOLLETT
USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado

JOHN M. KIMBLE
Innovative Soil Solutions, Addison, New York

JERRY L. HATFIELD
USDA-ARS, NSTL, Ames, Iowa

JOHN M. MIRANOWSKI
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

CYNTHIA A. CAMBARDELLA
USDA-ARS, NSTL, Ames, Iowa

ANDREW MANALE
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC

ROBERT P. ANEX
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

CHARLES W. RICE
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas

for biofuel (2). Crop residues protect soil resources from wind
and water erosion, serve as food sources for micro- and
Sinking agricultural botanical and soil residues to the deep macro-organisms, and enhance nutrient cycling, water
seafloor may not be a viable option for long-term carbon relationships (infiltration, retention, and release), and soil
sequestration. structure.
A recent Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) article We fully endorse recommendations for more research (1)
by Strand and Benford stated that to remove CO2 from the regarding the best use for crop residues in modern, complex
atmosphere, the most permanent and rapid solution would agricultural systems, but are concerned that crop residue
be to bury crop residues in deep ocean sediments (1). This oceanic permanent sequestration (CROPS) may have im-
proposal recognizes plants’ unique capacity to capture CO2 portant, unintended, and harmful consequences even though
(carbon) and the chemistry preventing decomposition. the concept was conceived with good intentions. We offer
However, many soil scientists and conservation policy experts an alternative approach for addressing increasing atmo-
are concerned that ES&T readers may not realize the many spheric CO2 concentrations that also protects soil productiv-
services that crop residues provide within sustainable and ity, water quality, biofuel feedstock production, wildlife
well-functioning agricultural systems. Crop residues have habitat, and community development. Viewing soil and crop
multiple biological, chemical, and physical roles that are residues from a systems perspective will help ES&T readers
crucial for sustaining the soil resources upon which humans understand the many ecosystem services these natural
depend for food, feed, fiber, and, most recently, feedstocks resources provide.
10.1021/es9011004  2009 American Chemical Society VOL. 43, NO. 21, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8011
Published on Web 09/01/2009
 14
Will Solving One Problem Create Another? CO2 after one year of decomposition under optimized and
controlled conditions (8). No attempt was made to estimate
Harvesting, transporting, and sinking crop residues to the long-term mineralization rates for several reasons. An easily
ocean floor to help mitigate atmospheric CO2 concentrations decomposable residue was used (8) and it was clearly stated
could result in CROPS becoming another example of at- that long-term surface residue contributions to soil organic
tempting to solve one environmental problem while inad- carbon may be greater with slowly decomposing stem tissue.
vertently creating others. This human tendency was pointed Field estimates of wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw loss
out in another recent ES&T article regarding grain ethanol generally range from 14 to 57% during the first year,
(3). Keeney suggested (p 11) that increasing grain ethanol depending on climatic and edaphic (soil) conditions (9-11).
production was an example of trying to move policy and Critical factors influencing crop residue decomposition are
science forward by making huge mistakes and then coming the C:N ratio (by mass) as well as size and shape of the
back to determine how to improve those actions based on material. Photographs and field measurements of corn
the errors that were made. We raise these concerns as points residue (stalks, leaves, and cobs) were used to document
for debate since the propensity to overlook potential flaws changes over a period of three years (12). The data show a
in environmental logic is not unique to 21st century slow decrease in C:N ratio (105, 67, 47, and 27 when measured
humankind (4). The real question is whether we can learn 0, 12, 24, and 36 months after harvest, respectively). In
from past mistakes (e.g. The Dust Bowl, King Cotton’s contrast to the oat residue used in the laboratory study (8),
devastating erosion, hypoxia, desertification, or deforestation) corn residue can have C:N ratios exceeding 200, while corn
as strategies to address increasing atmospheric CO2 con- grain has a C:N ratio of ∼40. It is therefore not scientifically
centrations are developed. To avoid unexpected problems defensible to use short-term laboratory data to predict long-
or unintended consequences, crop residues must be rec- term residue carbon mineralization rates in the field!
ognized for their multiple ecosystem services: filtering and Decomposition of crop residue does release CO2 into the
storing water; decomposing chemical residues and toxicants; atmosphere, but most is subsequently reincorporated into
carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) and the crop tissues, as demonstrated annually by atmospheric CO2
same for nitrogen (N); providing wildlife habitat; mitigating concentrations recorded at Mauna Loa. This process is even
flooding; soil, water, and air quality; food, feed, fiber, and greater in midwestern fields where CO2 capture rates are
energy production; and community development. among the most efficient for any agricultural system. Thus,
Why are we so concerned about using crop residues to stating that only 10% of crop residue from 20 years ago can
sustain soil resources rather than just sequestering carbon? be accounted for ignores the fact that during the other 19
The answers lie in America’s history of cropland use, its past years there is an increasing amount of soil organic carbon
neglect, and the great importance crop residues have for soil being stabilized as humus. It is also important to recognize
conservation (5). Perhaps it is worthwhile to once again quote that the entire system becomes more efficient with time as
historian Robert Worster who wrote, a field is managed using no-tillage. This not only includes
“The ultimate meaning of the dust storms of the 1930’s that the soilswith its several nutrient-cycling pathways, water
was that America as a whole, not just the Plains, (sic) was retention characteristics, and structuresis changed, but also
badly out of balance with its natural environment. Un- the attitudes and decision-making processes of the farmer.
bounded optimism about the future, careless disregard of Often no-tillage requires g5 years for a new equilibrium to
nature’s limits and uncertainties, uncritical faith in Provi- be achieved, and thus soil organic CCS has always been
dence, devotion to self-aggrandizementsall these were viewed as a short-term solution (∼50 years) for addressing
national as well as regional characteristics.” (6) atmospheric CO2 concentrations (13). This short-term basis
But can we learn from history so as to not repeat past means that no-tillage can contribute to mitigation of rising
mistakes? We mustsbut to do so will require solving multiple CO2 concentrations, but it is only a small part of the solution
challenges simultaneously with complementary solutions. for that problem. Fortunately adopting no-tillage is a relatively
We must strive to understand whole agricultural systems easy change to implement and its adoption can provide many
and to identify how proposed technologies will affect positive economic and environmental benefits, including
complex, interconnected, managed and natural ecosystems. CCS, if all ecosystem services are accounted.
There are also technical errors and misinterpretations of A third flaw in the CROPS discussion (1) can be traced to
soil science literature associated with the CROPS proposal misinterpretation of no-tillage effects on CCS in a corn and
(1). The first was a gross error in reporting average U.S. corn soybean (Glycine max) rotation (14). The crucial point was
(Zea mays) grain yield as 740 kg/m2/y. Certainly this was a that compared to diverse cropping systems, no-tillage alone
typographical error since subsequent calculations imply that may not be sufficient to increase carbon retention. This
the authors actually used 740 g/m2/y, but it draws attention emphasizes the importance of understanding the intercon-
to the need to understand how much carbon our most nected effects of crop sequence, tillage, nutrient manage-
efficient crops can capture. The U.S. average corn grain yield ment, water use, and other management decisions to fully
for 2003 through 2008 ranged from 0.754-0.850 kg/m2/y at appreciate ecosystem services. CCS and mitigation of at-
a water content of 0 g/kg (7). Using a 1:1 dry grain to stover mospheric CO2 concentrations are just two of those services.
ratio and 40% carbon content, the sequestration efficiency Others, including increasing infiltration rate, which reflects
ranged from 12.5 to 21.9% which equals 40-70 g C/m2/y. the amount and rate of water entry into the soil profile, are
This variability, which also determines the amount of crop also influenced by crop residues and can result in 90-95%
residue that can be harvested in a sustainable manner, is reductions in sediment and nutrient loss.
affected by site-specific factors including inherent soil A fourth flaw in CROPS involves the economics of
characteristics, crop rotation, management, and weather. sustainable residue harvest, storage, and transport. Even
A second flaw was that the extrapolation of surface-residue though the argument is made that residues are available
decomposition data from a controlled laboratory study to inexpensively and can be harvested with the same equipment
long-term estimates of in situ carbon mineralization and as corn, the facts are otherwise. Crop residues contain
volatile losses from crop residues (8). The text (1) incorrectly nutrients that are expensive and must be replenished to
reports the laboratory crop’s percent surface residue carbon maintain soil fertility. Specialized and costly equipment
lost after one year of decomposition, and estimated long- (separate from grain harvest) and additional operator time
term mineralization rate. Correct reporting shows that 66% during a small harvest window are also required. These factors
of 14C-labeled oat (Avena sativa cv. Ogle) residue was lost as result in a high “opportunity cost” associated with harvesting

8012 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 21, 2009
crop residue. A cost of $44/Mg ($44/t) for residue is estimated

JOHN DORAN/USDA
(1), but it is not clear if this includes any incentives for the
producer. Adjusting several studies (15-23) to 2007 prices
shows that crop residue harvest alone will cost more than
what is proposed. Transportation costs are discussed in Table
2 of the CROPS article (1) with regard to obtaining material
within 200 km of a river suitable for barge traffic. Currently,
most calculations for proposed biofuel plants limit their
collection radius to 65 km (40 mi), a distance more than
twice that currently considered economical for sugar cane
(Saccharum spp.) processing. Others have estimated a
marginal cost of $93/Mg to deliver 2.6 Tg within 183 km of
an ethanol plant (23). If this amount of residue is not sufficient
to meet CCS goals, then transportation costs and CO2 released
by combusting transportation fuels will increase even more.
In addition to debating these issues, there are also competing
uses for crop residues such as feed and bedding for livestock.

Ecosystem Services Provided by Crop Residues

Maintaining sufficient crop residues to control soil erosion
is essential not only to sustain productivity but also to reduce
nonpoint pollution risks, sedimentation, and anoxia. Soil
erosion decreases exponentially as soil cover increases.
Experiments conducted near Coshocton, OH during an
exceptional storm with more than 14 cm of rainfall in 7 h,
resulted in 11.2 cm of runoff (80% of rainfall) and 51 Mg/ha
of soil erosion from a plowed, clean-till watershed with a FIGURE 1. Silt-laden rivers in China, where for over 40
6.6% slope. However, with crop residue mulch and no-tillage, centuries people lived in harmony with their land, now lose 18
runoff and erosion from an adjacent watershed were only kg of farmable soil via erosion for every 1 kg of food eaten.
6.4 cm (45% of rainfall) and 0.07 Mg/ha, respectively (24),
even though the average slope was 20.7%. development of whole farm integrated energy systems,
The CROPS proposal (1) was directed at the U.S., but adoption of conservation- and no-tillage practices, use of
globally, maintaining adequate crop residue is even more solar energy and wind power, and continued development
important where soils are shallow and fertilizer and high- of nongrain biomass feedstock production and conversion
quality seed are often lacking. Experiments in Nigeria on enterprises. It is also important to recognize that agriculture
slopes ranging from 1 to 15% resulted in runoff ranging from is more than farms, farmers, and commodity crops (corn,
1.3 to 39.3 cm and soil erosion ranging from 0.1 to 87 Mg/ha soybean, wheat, cotton [Gossypium spp.], rice [Oryza sativa],
as mulch decreased from 6 to 0 Mg/ha (25). and sugar). Current national interests in bioenergy, air quality,
The importance of preventing soil erosion was recognized water quality, and economic development provide several
in the earliest estimates of biomass availability (2); recent unique opportunities to more fully embed economic, en-
projections for southern Minnesota (26) suggest that unless vironmental, and social aspects of agriculture within inte-
the number of lignocellulosic biofuel facilities exceeds ten, grated systems. For example, with regard to developing
there will be little to no incentive to violate erosion constraints lignocellulosic biofuel feedstocks and enterprises: planning
associated with meeting tolerable soil loss (T). A major to harvest only in areas where the amount of crop residue
problem is that meeting or staying below T alone is not exceeds that required to maintain soil resources (32) and
sufficient to sustain most soil resources (27). Box 1 speaks striving to develop dedicated bioenergy crops, agriculture as
to additional benefits of crop residues. a system could help mitigate increased nitrate concentrations
With regard to global CCS, we calculate that retaining in streams and groundwater, dredging of sediments, and
crop residues on croplands can sequester about 1 Pg C/y (1 hypoxia, and thus perhaps refute many biofuel criticisms
Gt C/y; 1 billion Mg C/y) (28, 29) or about 30% of the current (34-37).
annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (30). However, sustain- The feasibility to implement a landscape approach to
able crop residue management can not only offset CO2 manage crop residues, produce biofuel feedstocks, and
emissions, but also improve the ecological factors highlighted address off-site environmental issues within agricultural
in Box 1. Increasing soil organic carbon could increase global systems has become more feasible as the global positioning
food grain production by 29 Tg/y (29 Mt/y; 29 million Mg/y) system (GPS), geographic information system(s) (GIS(s)), and
and edible roots and tubers by 8 Tg/y (31). This would meet remote sensing have been developed for mapping and
the food demand for a growing population and break agrarian managing soil and crop resources. These technologies can
stagnation. Failing to properly manage crop residues and be used to optimize the following: fertilizer and pesticide
soil resources can thus have dire environmental conse- inputs (38-42); placement of drainage tile and terraces (43);
quences (Figure 1). field-edge and landscape-scale conservation practices (44, 45);
specific crops; rotations or tillage practices (46); and monitor
water quality (47). Recent experiments in central Iowa
Integrated Landscape SystemssAn Alternative Pathway indicate that converting just 10% of a watershed from no-
If the CROPS concept is not acceptable to soil and water tillage corn and soybean to strips of herbaceous perennial
scientists, what alternatives are offered to address rising CO2 plants could decrease water runoff by 49% and soil erosion
concentrations? Energy efficiency and conservation (29) are by 96%, while simultaneously increasing native plant, bird,
certainly a top priority, which is consistent with the North and beneficial insect populations (48). Strategically placing
Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Educa- relatively small amounts of perennial vegetation as integrated
tion (NCR-SARE) Administrative Council recommendations components within agricultural watersheds could help
for sustainable bioenergy production (30). We also encourage balance food, feed, fiber, and biofuel production while

VOL. 43, NO. 21, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8013
 engineering at ISU in Ames, IA. Charles W. Rice is a professor of soil
TABLE 1. Steps for Implementing a Landscape Approach to science at Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS. Doug.Karlen@
Address Multiple Environmental Problems (49) ars.usda.gov.

step action Acknowledgments

Disclaimer: The views expressed do not necessarily represent
1 identify spatial and temporal landscape those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or of the
characteristics using GIS technologies
Federal Government in general.
2 determine critical production and conservation needs
3 match critical needs with conservation (e.g., crop
residue management) practices Literature Cited
4 apply recommended practices using site-specific (1) Strand, S. E.; Benford, G. Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue
management Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments.
5 monitor effects of those practices and compare to Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1000–1007.
initial or baseline characteristics (2) Perlack, R. D.; Wright, L. L.; Turhollow, A. F.; Graham, R. L.;
6 re-evaluate and make adaptive changes Stokes, B. J.; Erbach, D. C. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy
and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-
ton annual supply; 2005; http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/
simultaneously providing soil, water, air, and wildlife con- billion_ton_vision.pdf.
servation as well as CCS benefits to hopefully achieve a (3) Keeney, D. Ethanol USA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8–11.
(4) Diamond, J. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed;
synergistic improvement for the whole environment.
Viking Press: New York, 2005.
Table 1 lists one approach for implementing a landscape (5) Follett, R. F. Economic and societal benefits of soil carbon
vision that supports conclusions (28) that humankind can management: cropland and grazing land systems. In Soil Carbon
solve the carbon and climate problem, and many other Management, Economic, Environmental, and Societal Benefits;
environmental issues, in the next 50 years. We conclude that Kimble, J. M., Rice, C. W., Reed, D., Mooney, S., Follett, R. F.,
although ocean sequestration may have a role in mitigating Lal, R. Eds.; Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, 2007; pp 99-
128.
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk (6) Worster, D. F. Dustbowl- the southern plains in the 1930s; Oxford
the future productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues. University Press: New York, 1979.
Perhaps the CROPS concept could be coupled with the use (7) USDA-NASS. Corn, Field, National Statistics, 2009; http://
of a thermochemical platform for production of biofuel where www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp (Feb. 23, 2009).
the biochar coproduct could be used not only for CCS but (8) Gale, W. J.; Cambaradella, C. A. Carbon dynamics of surface
residue- and root-derived organic matter under simulated no-
also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants
till. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2000, 64 (1), 190–195.
moving through the soil. The crucial question is whether (9) Brown, P. L.; Dickey, D. T. Losses of wheat straw residue under
this can be done without creating unintended environmental simulated conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 1970, 34, 118–121.
consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental changes (10) Douglas, C. L., Jr.; Allmaras, R. R.; Rasmussen, P. E.; Ramig,
will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full R. E.; Roager, N. C., Jr. Wheat straw composition and placement
accounting for all intended and nonintended consequences. effects on decomposition in dryland agriculture of the pacific
Northwest. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1980, 44, 833–837.
(11) Holland, E. A.; Coleman, C. S. Litter placement effects on
Box 1. microbial and organic matter dynamics in an agroecosystem.
Benefits of crop residues: Ecology 1987, 68, 425–433.
• sustain soil organic matter (12) Follett, R. F.; Paul, E. A.; Pruessner, E. G. Soil carbon dynamics
• buffer the soil against forces of raindrop impact and wind shear during a long-term incubation study involving 13C and 14C
measurements. Soil Sci. 2007, 172, 189–208.
• control soil erosion (13) Kimble, J. M.; et al. Agricultural Practices and Policy Options
• conserve soil moisture for Carbon Sequestration: What We Know and Where We Need
• reduce surface runoff and evaporation to Go. In Agricultural Practices and Policies for Carbon Seques-
• recycle plant nutrients tration in Soil; Kimble, J. M., Lal, R., Follett, R. F., Eds.; CRC
• providehabitatandanenergysourceforsoilorganismsincluding Press, Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 2002; pp 495-501.
(14) Baker, J. M.; Ochsner, T. E.; Venterea, R. T.; Griffis, T. J. Tillage
earthworms and microorganisms
and soil carbon sequestration - What do we really know? Agric.
• improve water quality by denaturing and filtering of pollutants Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118 (1-4), 1–5.
• increase infiltration rates (15) Hess, J. R.; Wright, C. T.; Kenney, K. L. Cellulosic Biomass
• improve soil structure Feedstocks and Logistics for Ethanol Production. Biomass
• reduce nonpoint source pollution Bioprod. Biorefining 2007, 1, 181–190.
• decrease sedimentation (16) McAloon, A.; Taylor, F.; Yee, W.; Ibsen, K.; Wooley, R. Determining
the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocel-
• minimize risks of anoxia and dead zones in coastal ecosystems lulosic Feedstocks; NREL/TP-580-28893; U.S. Department of
• increase agronomic productivity Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy, 2000.
• advance food security (17) Aden, A.; Ruth, M.; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan,
• mitigate flooding by holding water on the land rather than J.; Wallace, B.; Montague, L.; Slayton, A.; Lukas, J. Lignocellulosic
allowing it to runoff into streams and rivers Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics Utilizing Co-
Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for
Corn Stover; NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-510-32438; 2002.
(18) Suzuki, Y. Estimating the Cost of Transporting Corn Stalks in the
Midwest; Iowa State University College of Business, Business
Douglas L. Karlen is a research leader (RL) for the USDA-Agricultural and Partnership Development: Ames, IA, 2006.
Research Service (ARS) National Soil Tilth Laboratory (NSTL) and (19) Kaylen, M.; Van Dyne, D. L.; Choi, Y. S.; Blasé, M. Economic
current Science Policy Advisor for the Soil and Water Conservation Feasibility of Producing Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Feed-
Society (SWCS). Rattan Lal is a professor of soil science and Director
stocks. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 72, 19–32.
of the Carbon Center at the Ohio State University. Ronald F. Follett
is a USDA-ARS RL for the Soil Plant Nutrient Research (SPNR) unit (20) Kumar, A.; Cameron, J.; Flynn, P. Pipeline Transport and
in Ft. Collins, CO. John M. Kimble is CEO for Innovative Soil Solutions, Simultaneous Saccharification of Corn Stover. Bioresour. Tech-
Addison, NY. Jerry L. Hatfield is Laboratory Director for the USDA- nol. 2005, 96, 819–829.
ARS NSTL in Ames, IA. John M. Miranowski is a professor of (21) Searcy, E.; Flynn, P.; Ghafoori, E.; Kumar, A. The Relative Cost
agricultural economics at Iowa State University (ISU) in Ames, IA. of Biomass Energy Transport. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2007,
Cynthia A. Cambardella is an ecologist with the USDA-ARS at the 136-140, 639–652.
NSTL in Ames, IA. Andrew Manale is a senior analyst with the (22) Kumar, A.; Cameron, J.; Flynn, P. Biomass Power Cost and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, DC. Robert Optimum Plant Size in Western Canada. Biomass Bioenergy
P. Anex is an associate professor of agricultural and biosystems 2003, 24, 445–464.

8014 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 21, 2009
(23) Petrolia, D. R. The Economics of Harvesting and Transporting (38) Giles, D. K.; Slaughter, D. C. Precision band sprayer with
Corn Stover to Fuel Ethanol: A Case Study for Minnesota. machine-vision guidance and adjustable yaw nozzles. Trans.
Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32 (7), 603–612. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 1997, 40, 29–36.
(24) Harrold, L.; Edwards, W. M. A severe rainstorm test of no till (39) Tian, L.; Reid, J. F.; Hummel, J. W. Development of a precision
corn. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1969, 27 (30), 36. sprayer for site-specific weed management. Trans. ASA 1999,
(25) Lal, R. Soil erosion on Alfisols in western Nigeria. II. Effects of 42, 893–900.
mulch rates. Geoderma 1976, 16, 377–387. (40) Ferguson, R. B.; Hergert, G. W.; Schepers, J. S.; Gotway, C. A.;
(26) Petrolia, D. R. An Analysis of the Relationship between Demand Cahoon, J. E.; Peterson, T. A. Site-specific management of
for Corn Stover as an Ethanol Feedstock and Soil Erosion. Rev. irrigated maize: Yield and soil residual nitrate effects. Soil Sci.
Agric. Econ. 2008, 30 (4), 677–691. Soc. Am. J. 2002, 66, 544–553.
(27) Beyond T: Guiding Sustainable Soil Management; A Report of an (41) Khosla, R.; Fleming, K.; Delgado, J. A.; Shaver, T. M.; Westfall,
Expert Consultation Facilitated by the Soil and Water Conserva- D. G. Use of site-specific management zones to improve nitrogen
tion Society; Soil Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA, 2008; management for precision agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv.
www.swcs.org. 2002, 57, 513–518.
(28) Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate (42) Robert, P. C. Precision agriculture: a challenge for crop nutrition
change and food security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627. management. Plant Soil 2002, 247, 143–149.
(29) Pacala, S.; Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate (43) Zhang, N.; Wang, M.; Wang, N. Precision agriculture - a
problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science worldwide overview. Computers Electron. Agric. 2002, 36, 113–
2004, 305, 968–972. 132.
(30) NCR-SARE. NCR-SARE Bioenergy Position Paper, 2007; http:// (44) Berry, J. K.; Delgado, J. A.; Khosla, R.; Pierce, F. J. Precision
sare.org/ncrsare/bioenergy.htm (May 7, 2009). conservation for environmental sustainability. Soil Water Con-
(31) IPCC, Working Group I. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The serv. 2003, 58, 332–339.
Physical Science Base; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, (45) Dinnes, D. L. Assessments of practices to reduce nitrogen
UK, 2007. and phosphorus nonpoint source pollution of Iowa’s surface
waters; Iowa Department of Natural Resources and USDA-
(32) Lal, R. Managing soils to feed a global population of 10 billion.
ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, 2004; ftp://ftp.nstl.gov/
J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 2273–2284.
pub/NPS/NPS%20Nutrient%20Pollution%20Assessments%
(33) Wilhelm, W. W.; Johnson, J. M.-F.; Karlen, D. L.; Lightle, D. T.
20of%20Conservation%20Practices.pdf.
Corn stover to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains
(46) Kitchen, N. R.; Sudduth, K. A.; Myers, D. B.; Massey, R. E.; Sadler,
biomass supply. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1665–1667.
E. J.; Lerch, R. N. Development of a conservation-oriented
(34) Doornbosch, R.; Steenblik, R. Biofuels: Is the cure worse than precision agriculture system: crop production assessment and
the disease? In Round Table on Sustainable Development; OECD: plan implementation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2005, 60, 421–430.
Paris, 2007. (47) Hatch, L. K.; Mallawatantri, A.; Wheeler, D.; Gleason, A.; Mulla,
(35) Ernsting, A.; Boswell, A. Agrofuels: Towards a reality check in D.; Perry, J.; Easter, K. W.; Smith, R.; Gerlach, L.; Brezonik, P.
nine key areas; 2007; http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk. Land management at the major watershed--agroecoregion
(36) Fargione, J.; Hill, J.; Tilman, D.; Polasky, S.; Hawthorne, P. Land intersection. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2001, 56, 44–51.
clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 2008, 319, 1235– (48) Personal communication, Dr. Matt Liebman, Iowa State Uni-
1238. versity, 2009.
(37) Searchinger, T. R.; Heimlich, R. A.; Houghton, F.; Dong, A.; (49) Kimble, J. M., Rice, C. W., Reed, D., Mooney, S., Follett, R. F.,
Elobeid, J.; Fabiosa, S.; Tokgoz, D.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T.-H. Use Lal, R., Eds. Soil Carbon Management, Economic, Environmental,
of U.S. Croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases and Societal Benefits; Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, 2007.
through emissions from land use change. Science 2008, 319,
1238–1240. ES9011004

VOL. 43, NO. 21, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8015