Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37889461›Full record

ArticleAmbio2024

The role of conservation in United States' agricultural policy from the Dust Bowl to today: A critical assessment.

Silvia Secchi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Silvia SecchiDepartment of Geographical and Sustainability Sciences, University of Iowa, 302 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. silvia-secchi@uiowa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0095-0789
University of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historical evidence shows that environmental issues have been secondary to United States' agricultural policy since the first farm bill in 1933. The farm sector has undergone massive changes in technology and farming practices, but the environmental problems it causes have remained ancillary to productivist goals. Agri-environmental policy has continued to rely on subsidies and voluntary farmer participation, while combining environmental objectives with price and income support aims. The faith of agri-environmental programs is largely determined by what is desirable for safety net purposes, and in times of high crop and livestock prices and increased environmental pressures conservation is particularly underfunded. Additionally, monitoring and program assessment are poorly structured. This is particularly concerning today given the threats of climate change and agriculture's contribution to it. A major rethinking of these taxpayer-funded programs is necessary to improve their effectiveness. Programs should focus on environmental outcomes and monitoring and assessment should be strengthened.

Indexed as

AgricultureFarmersConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental PolicyFarmsHumansPolicyUnited StatesAgri-environmental policiesClimate change mitigationEnvironmental governancePolicy assessment

Identifiers

PMID37889461
PMCPMC10837406
OpenAlexW4387964966

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.