Next Article in Journal
The Story of a Steep River: Causes and Effects of the Flash Flood on 24 July 2017 in Western Norway
Previous Article in Journal
Water Quality Assessments for Urban Water Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vegetation and Residence Time Interact to Influence Metabolism and Net Nutrient Uptake in Experimental Agricultural Drainage Systems
Review

Agricultural Conservation Practices and Aquatic Ecological Responses

1
USDA-ARS National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS 38655, USA
2
USDA-ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
3
Department of Biology, Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA
4
University of Mississippi Field Station, The University of Mississippi, Abbeville, MS 38601, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Anas Ghadouani
Water 2021, 13(12), 1687; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121687
Received: 19 May 2021 / Revised: 14 June 2021 / Accepted: 15 June 2021 / Published: 18 June 2021
Conservation agriculture practices (CAs) have been internationally promoted and used for decades to enhance soil health and mitigate soil loss. An additional benefit of CAs has been mitigation of agricultural runoff impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Countries across the globe have agricultural agencies that provide programs for farmers to implement a variety of CAs. Increasingly there is a need to demonstrate that CAs can provide ecological improvements in aquatic ecosystems. Growing global concerns of lost habitat, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, increased eutrophication and associated harmful algal blooms are expected to intensify with increasing global populations and changing climate. We conducted a literature review identifying 88 studies linking CAs to aquatic ecological responses since 2000. Most studies were conducted in North America (78%), primarily the United States (73%), within the framework of the USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Identified studies most frequently documented macroinvertebrate (31%), fish (28%), and algal (20%) responses to riparian (29%), wetland (18%), or combinations (32%) of CAs and/or responses to eutrophication (27%) and pesticide contamination (23%). Notable research gaps include better understanding of biogeochemistry with CAs, quantitative links between varying CAs and ecological responses, and linkages of CAs with aquatic ecosystem structure and function. View Full-Text
Keywords: conservation; ecology; habitat; eutrophication; pesticides; agroecosystems conservation; ecology; habitat; eutrophication; pesticides; agroecosystems
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lizotte, R.E.; Smiley, P.C.; Gillespie, R.B.; Knight, S.S. Agricultural Conservation Practices and Aquatic Ecological Responses. Water 2021, 13, 1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121687

AMA Style

Lizotte RE, Smiley PC, Gillespie RB, Knight SS. Agricultural Conservation Practices and Aquatic Ecological Responses. Water. 2021; 13(12):1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121687

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lizotte, Richard E., Peter C. Smiley, Robert B. Gillespie, and Scott S. Knight 2021. "Agricultural Conservation Practices and Aquatic Ecological Responses" Water 13, no. 12: 1687. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121687

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop