2019 SWCS International Annual Conference July 28-31, 2019 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

1. State and Transition
Models on Cropland:
Examples, Emerging
Principles and
Challenges
Mike Kucera
NRCS Agronomist Lincoln, NE

2. Use of Ecological Sites and STMs on Cropland
Nine Steps of Planning (three phases)
– Resources/Inventories, Applicable Systems/Practices, Monitoring/Feedback
Suitability/Limitations for Land Uses and Practices
Response to Management and Disturbance
Resilience and Sustainability
Spatial Relevancy
Challenges and Priorities for development
STMs Provide
– Range of dynamic soil properties (soil health indicators)
– Transitions (Practices, Adaptive Mgt, Common Mistakes)
– Land use decision tree first tier (conversion of land use)
– Nested STMs (i.e. orchards/vineyards vs. row crop)
– Decision-making support for cropland

3. Ecological Sites (Conservation
Planning on all Landuses)
Basis for aggregating soil map unit components across state and
county boundaries
Similar ecological/management response, climate, soils, hydrology,
physiography, and other factors
Consider other land uses when developing ES concepts
Similar forest productivity index/TSI, crop production indexes/crops,
forage species/production, & management response/practice effects.
Aggregate STMs on similar ecological sites for use on alternative land
uses (i.e. Loamy and Clayey Upland for irrigated pasture/cropland
with high energy inputs)
Linked to Soil/Site Limitations for equipment and conservation
practices (i.e. shallow soils, wetness, salinity)

4. Cropland STMs Across Ecological Sites

5. State and Transition Models For
Conservation Planning on all Landuses
Blue print for conservation planning for common land uses (from
local planners)
Start simple but allow for more complex STMs as knowledge is
gained (especially for alternative land uses)
Support local priorities and programs (invasive species,
restoration, wildlife, water quality, soil health, hydrology impacts,
etc.)
Local expertise/knowledge used to establish common states =
Similar resource concerns, based on SWAPA thresholds for
common state scenarios for each landuse in the local area
Transitions and Pathways describe how changes in states occur
(conservation practices, management, climate, & time)
Separate STMs for each landuse (allow for states to focus on land
uses that are most applicable for planning and programs)
Restoration pathways (i.e. wetland restorations, Declining Habitat
Restorations)
Indicators for Common States (Physical, Chemical and Biological)

6. (1) define clients decision context;
(2) identify measurable objectives;
(3) formulate alternative management strategies;
(4) explore the consequences of alternatives in relation to
objectives;
(5) select alternative but make trade-offs among objectives.

7. LANDUSE CONVERSIONS AND RESTORATION PATHWAYS (general more
detailed options/information will be developed)
T1, T9 Cultivation/chemical kill, Irrigation Well and Irrigation Application
System if irrigated
T2 Cultivation and reseeding, abandoned or combination of fertilizer, seeding,
heavy summer grazing
T3, T7 Encroachment by Red cedar, Siberian elm and/or Locust and lack of
fire or brush management; Cultivation Tree planting and Forest Stand
Management
T4 Clearing and cultivation
T5 Abandonment and tree encroachment; Tree planting and Forest Stand
Management
T6 Site preparation and Pasture Seeding
T8, T11 Clearing, and pasture seeding or range seeding
T10 Site Preparation and Range seeding
T1
T2 T3
T4
T6
T5
T7
T8T9
Loamy Upland Loess Mixed Grass Prairie Rangeland Ecotype (ESD)
Tier 1 STM
(Nested Land Use Decision Tree -
Land Use Conversion)
T1
1T10
T12
LANDUSE INTERPRETATIONS (general information for each
major landuse)
Range: Refer to rangeland ESD, STM and other major range
interpretations
Crop: Cropping limitations, equipment limitations, crop yields,
crop adaptability, management limitations, other general
cropland interpretations for site.
Pasture: Forage suitability group information, landuse
limitations, equipment limitations, productivity, grass/legume
adaptability, management limitations, other general pasture
interpretations for site.
Forest: Tree and shrub group information, landuse limitations,
equipment limitations, wildlife, production timber indexes,
tree/shrub adaptability, management limitations, other general
forest interpretations for site
Pasture (Irrigated or rain fed)
Crop (irrigated or rain fed)
Range
Forest

8. CROPLAND INTERPRETATIONS/LIMITATIONS/SUITABILITY
• Conservation practice limitations and suitability for the site
• Cropping limitations, equipment limitations, crop yields, crop suitability, management
limitations, site limitations (wetness, soil depth, etc.)
• General cropland interpretations
wetnesseroded

9. 3. Low
1. High
2. Medium
1.1 Short Term High level SHMS following range, pasture
1.2 High Managed
Perennial Hayland (long term)
1.3 High Level Soil Health
Management System (long term)
3.1 Corn Soybean Conventional Tillage
3.2 Silage/Stover Harvested,
Overgrazed CT
2.1 Mulch Tillage/Short term no-till
2.2 Medium Managed/Per.
Hayland
3.3 Low condition Hayland
Dryland Crop
(Loamy Upland)
T2A T1A
T3A
T2B

10. On-Site Soil Health
Indicators Dynamic Soil
Properties

11. Healthy vs Degraded Soil Properties and Indicators of Soil Health

12. Degraded Cropland State:
Management (Highly
Erodible)
Conventional Tillage (fall chisel
spring disk)
328: Corn-Soybean Rotation
No Cover Crops
No Field Borders
Standard Nutrient Management
Herbicide Resistant Weeds
What are the onsite indicators and range of dynamic
soil properties of this state/condition?
What are the limitations for this landuse?
What conservation practices and management will
work for severe storms? Drought Resilience?

13. Healthy Cropland State:
Conservation Practices
329: Continuous No-till
328: Diverse crop rotation
C-SB-W/CC rotated from
perennial hayland
330: Contour Farming
340: Cover Crops
528: Prescribed Grazing
386: Field Borders
600: Terraces
412: Grassed Waterway
620: Underground Outlets
590: Nutrient Management
(soil testing, zone mgt
liming, 4Rs)
595: Pest Mgt (Scouting,
Thresholds, Herbicide
Resistance Management)
Perennial Hayland (2000-2009 same field

14. Degradation / Resilience Threshold
Resource Concern Threshold
SoilFunctions/EcosystemServices
Disturbance
within one Agricultural Production Group
Ecological Potential (example graph)
Attainable for Grain Rotations Production Group
GrainRotations
Rotation,
short term
no-till, no
cover crops
Organic
system w/
cover crops
Monocrop,
Residue
removal
tillage
Continuous
no-till
rotation, w/
cover crops
Diverse
rotation,
tillage
Continuous
no-till perennial
crops in rotation,
w/ cover crops

15. 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Soil Loss
tons/ac/yr
Runoff Inches per
season
High
Management
Medium
Management
Low
Management
Example Numerical Graphs
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
SCI
High
Management
Medium
Management
Low
Management

16. Challenges for Cropland STM
Development
• STMs designed originally for Range and Forest
• Tier 1 concepts starting with land uses are new
• Similar management practices utilized across ecological sites
within an entire field (crop rotation dependent)?
• Defining states (thresholds, range of conditions)?
• Level of detail for transitions?
• Information to include in cropland STMs so they are useful to
planners?
• Use of similar STMs across ecological sites?
• STMs on energy dependent land uses?
• Soil health indicators, modeled data, and dynamic soil properties
(impacts of practices)?
• Staff time and priorities?
• Are the benefits of cropland STMs worth the investment for
conservation planning use by states?

17. Conclusions(STMs for Cropland)
• Spatially relevant
• Ecosystem services/management response
• Conservation practice recommendations
• Common conditions within cropland
• Limitations-suitability
• Common transitions (negative & positive)
• Conservation decision-making
• Restoration & land use conversion
• Monitoring conditions and trends
(indicators- range of dynamic soil properties)
• Limitations on funding and staff time

18. Questions?
Mike Kucera: michael.kucera@lin.usda.gov