Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37866183›Full record

ReviewJournal of environmental management2023

A review of ecosystem services from edge-of-field practices in tile-drained agricultural systems in the United States Corn Belt Region.

Mark E Mitchell, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Jay Christensen, William Crumpton, Brian Dyson, Timothy J Canfield, Matthew Helmers, Kenneth J Forshay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of environmental management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mark E MitchellOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. Electronic address: mitchell.mark.e@epa.gov.
Tammy Newcomer-JohnsonOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Jay ChristensenOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
William CrumptonDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, 251 Bessey Hall, 2200 Osborn Dr., Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Brian DysonOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Timothy J CanfieldOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 919 Kerr Research Drive, Ada, OK 74820, USA.
Matthew HelmersDepartment of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, 4354 Elings, 605 Bissell Rd., Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Kenneth J ForshayOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 919 Kerr Research Drive, Ada, OK 74820, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Edge-of-field management practices that reduce nutrient pollution from tile drainage while contributing habitat and other ecosystem services are needed to enhance agricultural systems in the US Corn Belt Region. In this review, we identified edge-of-field and catchment scale agricultural conservation practices for intercepting and treating tile drainage. The reviewed conservation practices were (1) controlled drainage, also known as drainage water management (USDA-NRCS Code 554); (2) drainage water recycling (USDA-NRCS Code 447); (3) denitrifying bioreactors (USDA-NRCS Code 605); (4) saturated buffers (USDA-NRCS Code 604); and (5) constructed or restored wetlands designed for water quality improvement (USDA-NRCS Code 656) herein referred to as water quality wetlands. We examined 119 studies that had information on one or more of the following ecosystem services: water retention, water quality improvement (e.g., nitrate, phosphate, sediment, or pesticide retention), wetland habitat (for birds, aquatic organisms, and pollinators), crop yield improvement, and other benefits (e.g., recreation, education, aesthetic appreciation, greenhouse gas retention). We found the five edge-of-field practices were all effective at removing nitrate with varying degrees of other potential benefits and disservices (e.g., greenhouse gas production). Drainage water recycling and water quality wetlands have the potential to provide the most co-benefits as they provide surface water systems for capturing surface flows in addition to tile drainage while also potentially providing habitat and recreation opportunities. However, the following research needs are identified: 1) the disservices and benefits associated with drainage water recycling have not been adequately evaluated; 2) surface flow dynamics are understudied across all reviewed management practices; 3) a complete accounting of phosphorus species and flow pathways for all management practices is needed; 4) field evaluations of the habitat benefit of all management practices are needed; and 5) greenhouse gas dynamics are understudied across all management practices. While all management practices are expected to reduce nitrate loads, addressing these knowledge gaps will help inform holistic management decisions for diverse stakeholders across the US Corn Belt.

Indexed as

EcosystemGreenhouse GasesAgricultureNitratesUnited StatesZea maysGreenhouse GasesNitratesAgricultural conservation practiceCorn beltGreenhouse gasesHabitatNitrogenPhosphorus

Identifiers

PMID37866183
PMCPMC11773691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.