Agricultural management effects on soil health across the US Southern Great Plains

Authors: Rottler, Caitlin; Steiner, Jean; Brown, David; Duke, Sara

Submitted to: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 9/1/2019
Publication Date: 9/1/2019
Citation: Rottler, C.M., Steiner, J.L., Brown, D.P., Duke, S.E. 2019. Agricultural management effects on soil health across the US Southern Great Plains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 74(5):419-425. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.419.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.74.5.419

Interpretive Summary: Improving soil health is commonly suggested as a way to “buffer” agricultural systems against climate change impacts such as increases in drought, storm severity and annual temperature. A number of producers in the Southern Plains and elsewhere have begun to manage with an emphasis on improving soil health, but adoption of these practices is not widespread. There is evidence that soil health management (SHM) has positive effects on soil health that conventional management (CM) does not, but the effects have not been quantified using a standard method across the Southern Plains, nor have they been compared to sustainably managed conventional systems. We used a network of 3 pairs of SHM and CM sites at 12 locations in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to test a suite of biological, chemical, and physical soil health indicators. We then analyzed differences between these indicators to better understand how SHM and CM fields compared across the region and identify potential effects of precipitation and temperature on these differences. We found that responses to management were not uniform across the southern great plains and that soil health indicators responded primarily to climate, rather than to management practices. These results suggest that soil health responses as a result of SHM may constrained by other factors, resulting in variation across the landscape. Our findings underscore the importance of understanding management and other impacts on soil health when developing realistic land management goals.

Technical Abstract: Improving soil health is commonly suggested as a way to “buffer” agricultural systems against climate change impacts such as increases in drought, storm severity and annual temperature. A number of producers in the Southern Plains and elsewhere have begun to manage with an emphasis on improving soil health, but adoption of these practices is not widespread. There is evidence that soil health management (SHM) has positive effects on soil health that conventional management (CM) does not, but the effects have not been quantified using a standard method across the Southern Plains, nor have they been compared to sustainably managed conventional systems. We used a network of 3 pairs of SHM and CM sites at 12 locations in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to test a suite of biological, chemical, and physical soil health indicators. We then analyzed differences between these indicators to better understand how SHM and CM fields compared across the region and identify potential effects of precipitation and temperature on these differences. We found that responses to management were not uniform across the southern great plains and that soil health indicators responded primarily to climate, rather than to management practices. These results suggest that soil health responses as a result of SHM may constrained by other factors, resulting in variation across the landscape. Our findings underscore the importance of understanding management and other impacts on soil health when developing realistic land management goals.