The efficacy of conservation practices in reducing floods and improving water quality

Abstract

Conservation practices such as crop rotation, filter strips, and constructed wetlands are nature-based approaches intended to safeguard natural resources in agricultural landscapes. In this study, we reviewed the literature on how conservation practices, both at watershed and field scales, have been proven to subdue flood peaks, surface runoff, soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss. We classified different conservation practices based on the mode of their application (i.e., in-field, edge-of-field, and structural practices) and described what prior research efforts have concluded about the efficacy of different practices. At the field scale, practices such as reduced or no-till farming, grassed waterways, and creation of wetlands significantly reduced the peak flow. Similarly, water quality was improved with implementation of conservation practices such as using cover crops, filter strips, and managing residue and tillage. The assessment of conservation practices across the literature was found to be challenging as different conservation practices showed a similar response, thus making it complex to assess the individual effect. A wide range of challenges related to the data, modeling/analysis, and management aspects of conservation practices were identified, and recommendations were provided to overcome these challenges.

Highlights

1 Introduction

Around the world, about 12 million hectares of cultivable landmass are abandoned each year due to increased land deterioration, leading to reduced agricultural production (Rickson et al., 2015). This land deterioration is attributed to a wide range of factors, including the rise of surface runoff, soil erosion and degradation, sediment deposition, and nutrient loss, which occur despite increasing awareness about the ecosystem and the implementation of different preventive measures (Heathcote et al., 2013). In this period of competing demands on natural resources due to factors such as population increase, shifting diets, and climate change, understanding how the negative impacts of agricultural production can be reduced through the implementation of different conservation practices has gained considerable attention (Adusumilli and Wang, 2018). Expansion in urban infrastructures and human alteration to natural systems have intensified runoff, making it one of the major challenges in water resource management (Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016). Furthermore, the adverse impacts of increased soil erosion and fresh-water scarcity on agricultural production, ecological conservation, and human health are becoming increasingly apparent (O’Connell et al., 2007). Studies suggest a distressing future with the rising population and declining land productivity (Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2006; Rickson et al., 2015; Adusumilli and Wang, 2018).

Conservation practices can be considered a nature-based solution to counter peak flows, soil erosion, and non-point source pollution. Different attributes that govern the effectiveness of these practices are technical achievability, ecological soundness, financial feasibility, and social acceptance (Herweg and Ludi, 1999). The implementation of conservation practices comes with different challenges for landowners and managers, including limited knowledge and skills, equipment access, and lack of financial assistance. Furthermore, soil characteristics change from region to region, making the implementation of conservation practices highly context-specific (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Lahmar, 2010; Corbeels et al., 2014; Telles et al., 2019).

In this review paper, we focus on the role of different conservation practices in reducing two specific and significant environmental concerns related to agricultural operations—attenuating peak flow and enhancing water quality through reducing soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss—by reviewing prior research. We also reviewed assessment approaches of these practices followed by challenges and the future scope in the context of data, modeling/analysis, and management. The current review paper follows a snowballing approach (outlined in Figure 1) by first referring to different papers based on diverse themes in the context of the assessment of conservation practices and their influence on flooding and water quality. This paper then furthers the literature review by assessing the various papers cited within the previously mentioned literature. This approach allows the report to be impartial to ideas and approaches included across the agriculture conservation domain.

FIGURE 1

The paper reviews gaps in research and knowledge at a global scale across field and watershed levels to understand how conservation practices can counter flooding conditions and improve water quality. Conservation practices are classified as in-field, edge-of-field, and structural practices to categorize the process by which it influences flooding and water quality. We also study the effects of climate change with respect to conservation practices effectiveness and conclude by examining challenges associated with the assessment of conservation practices and the future scope of the research.

2 Impact of conservation practices in prior studies

The study of the impact of conservation practices at watershed and field scale provides an understanding of the interfaces of the environment, weather conditions, land, runoff, and contaminant transport processes (Sharpley et al., 2002; Renschler and Lee, 2005). Numerous prior studies have reported water quality and quantity problems through both field observation and modeling approaches and have indicated that the application of conservation practices has significantly improved the peak flow condition and water quality (Hu et al., 2007; Her et al., 2016; Muenich et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). In context to water quality, one study reported non-point source pollution concerns across the West Fork watershed of the Trinity River Basin in Texas (Santhi et al., 2006). The study found that implementing management practices such as filter strips, nutrient management, manure management, etc., significantly reduced up to 99% of non-point source pollution on farms. In another case, higher nitrate content was found in the Upper Embarras River watershed in East Central Illinois, due to excessive nitrogen application (Hu et al., 2007). The model predicted a reduction in nitrate up to 43% with the implementation of a nutrient management plan. The Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed in Ohio was a similar case. The Environmental Protection Agency had classified it as an impaired watershed with high nutrient and pathogen concentrations (King et al., 2008). Conservation practices such as precision nutrient and drainage water management were implemented to counter this.

Other instances of the impact of conservation practices on agricultural operations and ecosystem restorations include a study which reported on non-point source pollution that resulted in a 95% increase in total nitrate content in the Des Moines River (Schilling and Wolter, 2009). The study found that applying nutrient management plans resulted in a 38% reduction in nitrate load. Agricultural areas surrounding Lake Erie were identified as a source of nutrient loading (soluble P), which turned some parts of Lake Erie into a place of algal bloom (Her et al., 2016; Muenich et al., 2016). Results of this study suggested that even if the application of different fertilizers ceased, some regions might take many years to recover from excessive nutrient contamination. The study reported the benefits of conservation practices such as nutrient management, filter strips, cover crops, crop rotation, and biofuels in improving the scenario. Similarly, Singh et al. (2018) mentioned the increasing concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus leading to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico due to excessive fertilizer application and the tile drainage system. Their results highlighted the fact that the application of conservation practices, such as critical area planting, filter strips, irrigation land levelling, and nutrient management reduced sediment concentration up to 80%, and nutrient levels dropped significantly. These cases highlighted the need for research to provide different nature-based solutions to improve water quality.

In the context of flooding, the United States flood management recommendation emphasizes employing non-structural measures to reduce peak flows (De Laney, 1995). Flood risk management is shifting towards new concepts that put emphasis on providing more water space by restoring flood plains (Brémond et al., 2013). In such scenarios, the role of conservation practices becomes crucial. Different authors have reported the potential of conservation practices in attenuating flood peaks and frequency. A study found a reduction in peak flow due to construction of wetlands (De Laney, 1995). The study concluded that 5%–10% of the wetlands area in the watershed could attenuate around 50% of peak floods. Similarly, another research effort reported the effectiveness of conservation practices in reducing the peak flow in the Lower Pearl River watershed in the South Mississippi region (Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016). The study also reported this region experienced a destructive flood in 1979, which caused more than $250 million in damage. Likewise, frequent occurrences of flooding were reported in the Yellow River Basin. This basin was listed among the most flood-prone areas in the world (Bai et al., 2016). The study concluded conservation practices such as level terrace, afforestation, grass planting, and check-dam were effective in attenuating the peaks.

3 Conservation practices: A potential solution to the problem

Conservation practices have the potential to play a significant role in reducing peak flow and improving water quality. To capture their response, it is essential to compare pre-conservation practice scenarios and post-conservation practice scenarios (Her et al., 2016; Muenich et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). Different authors have reported the effectiveness of applying various conservation practices in their field of interest (Hu et al., 2007; Her et al., 2016; Muenich et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). The effectiveness of conservation practices changes based on spatial and temporal scales. The potential factors which control its effectiveness were climate, crop type, biophysical and socioeconomic conditions, and labor input (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Hatfield and Prueger, 2011; Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016).

This review summarizes different results, which can help researchers, farmers, and local stakeholders by providing insight into conservation practices that might be applied in context to existing problems in their regions. We have classified conservation practices to reflect the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) definition. They classified them as in-field, edge-of-field, and structural practices as per their mode of implementation (Basche et al., 2020) (Table 1; Table 2,; Table 3).

4 Effectiveness of conservation practices in addressing flooding and water quality

4.1 In the context of flooding

In agricultural land-use management, flood hazard can be defined as the probability of exceeding critical peak discharge, resulting in economic damage and raising food security concerns (O’Connell et al., 2007). Usually, runoff generated from small streams is considered less severe. Still, there is a high chance that these insignificant changes will propagate, resulting in higher runoff at a larger catchment scale. The runoff changes on the local scale need to be monitored, as they can result in flooding. Modern flood management is typically designing a system that prefers allowing water to be stored by restoring flood plains. However, these restorations significantly affect the agricultural areas, ultimately burdening productivity (Brémond et al., 2013).

Prior research has studied the effects of different conservation practices on flooding. Practices referring to reduced or no-till farming methods minimized soil disruption and allowed soil biota and structure to reorient. The presence of soil biota often led to the formation of micro and macro sized pores (Sun et al., 2020; Hovis et al., 2021). These pores at larger scales absorbed the excess water during rainfall, thus delaying the peak flows and improving soil infiltration capacity (De Laney, 1995; Hovis et al., 2021). Practices such as bioretention, vegetated grass strips, and filter strips reduced runoff through accelerating storage, evapotranspiration, and infiltration. Wild and Davis (2009) reported that these practices successfully reduced peak volume by 42%. Dakhlalla and Parajuli (2016) reported grassed waterways were effective in reducing peak flow (up to 8.4%) by increasing the roughness of the surface. Similarly, a study found grassed waterways were effective in attenuating muddy flooding (Evrard et al., 2008). There was a 69% reduction in peak discharge. The study also reported that the efficacy of grassed waterways could be increased with the combination of alternating farming practices, such as reduced tillage.

Studies have also referred to cover crops’ effectiveness in reducing the peak flow during high flood frequency scenarios (Muenich et al., 2016; Antolini et al., 2020). Since these crops were planted once primary harvesting is complete, they were most effective at controlling flood peaks during winters or early springs (Hovis et al., 2021). It was also found that in the post-flooding scenario, applying a cover crop immediately after the soil was dry promotes the growth of microorganisms, which are essential for nutrient cycling (Al-Kaisi, 2019). Wetlands could be one potential solution to counter peak flow problems as it delays flood water movement and reduces downstream water flow. A study identified two types of wetlands, wetland retention basins and forested wetlands, in countering stream velocity and sediment transport (Hovis et al., 2021). The wetland’s location in the watershed significantly impacts its effectiveness in lowering the flood peaks. A global study cited the efficacy of multiple small freshwater marshes at the watershed’s upper reach in reducing the peak flow (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). These small multiple units mitigated the chances of wetlands’ destruction from abnormal precipitation. It can also act as a detention basin which can delay and reduce peak flows. Similarly, Ogawa and Male (1983) reported the effectiveness of wetlands when located downstream.

Apart from the practices cited above, this review has identified other practices that have effectively reduced the peak flow (magnitude based on spatial scale at which studies were carried out). The practices included utilizing afforestation (up to 80%) (Huang et al., 2003), detention ponds (up to 6%) (Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016), grade stabilization structures (up to 25%) (Kaini et al., 2008), grasslands (40%–45%) (Gerla, 2007), parallel terraces (up to 3.1%) (Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016), soil bunds infused with grasses and short trenches (up to 55%) (Sultan et al., 2018), and urban forests (3%–8%) (Lormand, 1988).

Surface Runoff - Surface runoff refers to water movement on the land surface due to excessive precipitation, stormwater, snowmelt, or any other source that is no longer infiltrated in the soil. Excessive surface runoff often results in flooding and is one of the major sources of non-point source pollution (Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). These pollutants can be sediments, pesticides, and nutrients, which heavily affect off-site water bodies (Wallace et al., 2017). The variables that control surface runoff include temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and wind speed (Kurothe et al., 2014; Adimassu et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2017).

Different conservation practices were found to be effective in reducing surface runoff. Straw mulch was effective in improving the infiltration rate and the cohesive strength against erosive forces (Olkeba et al., 2012). Antolini et al. (2020) found the effectiveness of cover crops in reducing runoff as they provided a protective layer to the surface, which reduced surface runoff and runoff velocity. Conservation practices referring to no-tillage, ridge-farming tillage, and stubble mulch farming tillage effectively reduced surface runoff (Kurothe et al., 2014). The study concluded that no-tillage resulted in the minimum disturbance in soil, which promoted filtration and reduced runoff (up to 16%). Similarly, ridge formation along a contour and tillage along the contour created a barrier to overland flow, which increased the surface detention time and, thus, the infiltration period. This reduced surface runoff by up to 69%.

Farahani et al. (2016) discussed the effectiveness of contour farming in reducing surface runoff. Contour cultivation reduced the runoff by 10% compared to when crops were planted perpendicular to the slope. The study also found that the effectiveness of contour farming was further increased with the combination of a no-tillage system. Bunds were also found to be effective in controlling runoff because of their ability to retain water across the slope. The studies found different soil bunds, such as grade, level, and stone, to reduce runoff by 25.2%, 60.1%, and 34.4%, respectively (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Araya et al., 2011; Adimassu et al., 2014). Similarly, Blanco-Canqui et al. (2004) discussed the effectiveness of buffer strips in reducing runoff through changing hydrologic pathways, resulting in a higher infiltration period and reduced surface flow. However, studies have observed that buffer strips were only effective for reducing sediment and nutrient load (Chaubey et al., 2010; Wagena and Easton, 2018). Such cases indicated that conservation practice effectiveness changes with weather, soil, and cropping system.

4.2 In the context of water quality

The deterioration in water quality severely impacts living beings, as it adversely affects crop productivity and environmental sustainability (Hurni, 1996; Adimassu et al., 2017). The upcoming generation of farming and landscape requires multifunctional and ecological sustainability (Kassam et al., 2014). In achieving these requirements, conservation practices can play a crucial role (Santhi et al., 2006; Kassam et al., 2014; Adimassu et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2018). The impact of conservation practices on water quality in this review was studied by analyzing their influence on soil erosion, soil sediments, and soil nutrients.

Soil Erosion—Soil erosion refers to the removal of the topmost layer of soil on the earth’s surface. These fine layers have the highest amount of plant nutrients and have a significant concentration of agrochemicals, soil biota, soil carbon, and organic matter. Soil erosion reduces the effective mass and depth of in situ soil, thus reducing the storage capacity of moisture and nutrients (Rickson et al., 2015). Several factors affecting soil erosion are existing vegetative cover, deforestation rate, soil and water conservation measure, population growth, and climate change (Zhao et al., 2013). Soil erosion has caused severe damage to the food production system (Adimassu et al., 2014). It degrades the land quality as it deteriorates soil conditions. Additionally, soil biota, which is severely affected by soil erosion, reduces fertility and infiltration (Pimentel et al., 1995). Different literature has provided their input on how soil erosion affected crop productivity. For instance, Young (1989) found that eroded soil decreased crop productivity by 50%–75%. Similarly, Bakker et al. (2004) found a loss of 4.3%–26.6% productivity per 10 cm in the soil layer.

Studies have stated their findings regarding the effectiveness of different conservation practices at the watershed and field levels. It is important to note that the effectiveness of these practices varies with change in weather, soil, and cropping system. According to a study, the potential conservation practices that can counter the increasing soil erosion rate were crop rotation, strip cropping, grass strips, cover crops, mulches, living mulches, agroforestry, and windbreaks (Pimentel et al., 1995). Other research reported the effectiveness of terracing, afforestation, natural rehabilitation, and check-dams construction in reducing the impact (Zhao et al., 2013). Practice such as residue and tillage management addresses the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and plant residue. Crops are grown in narrow slots or tilled strips to reduce soil disturbance, thus, reducing erosion (Hengsdijk et al., 2005). Merten et al. (2015) suggested that the presence of residue effectively controlled erosion as it dissipated rain-drop energy, improved infiltration capacity, and increased surface roughness, thus reducing the runoff velocity. Further, the mulching treatment was effective as it could minimize erosion up to 98% (Adimassu et al., 2014). Conservation practices such as graded and level soil bunds and grass strips were also found to be effective in retaining the water, thus minimizing erosion (Herweg and Ludi, 1999). The combination of different practices was found to be effective in countering erosion. Farahani et al. (2016) found the effectiveness of contour farming in reducing erosion when combined with conservation tillage. Likewise, tied ridge and field yard manure effectively reduced soil erosion (Araya et al., 2011). Implementation of these practices can be effective. However, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are among the factors that influence conservation measures and, subsequently, erosion. Effective planning for applying soil conservation measures, new techniques, and modifications in educational/training programs can effectively increase awareness among the population regarding soil erosion (Ersedo, 2021).

Soil Sediments—The movement of soil sediments can be attributed to soil disturbance. Runoff carries these sediments from a non-point source are one of the major sources of surface water pollution (Muñoz-Carpena et al., 1999). Sediment transport is often interlinked with soil erosion and nutrient loss. Soil erosion on a larger scale result in sediment deposition in water bodies (Vanacker et al., 2003). These sediments are often accompanied by nutrients that degrade water quality and soil health (Zhao et al., 2013).

Although conservation practices have diversified benefits, some were highly effective in controlling sediment loading. Conservation practices such as filter strips, field borders, and grassed waterways effectively trapped sediment movement (Dillaha et al., 1986; Magette et al., 1989; Muenich et al., 2016). These practices reduced sediment transport from runoff through different processes such as filtration, deposition, adsorption, and decomposition (Muñoz-Carpena et al., 1999). These processes reduced flow resulting in reduced sediment transport capacity. Studies have found that these practices, on average, can reduce sediment transport by up to 40%–45% (Santhi et al., 2006; Her et al., 2016). Studies have reported the effectiveness of the water and sediment control basin, which reduced sediment loading (Her et al., 2016; Turnbow, 2021). Water and sediment control basins (WASCoBs) reduced the erosive potential of surface water by holding it with berms and allowing it to flow through stable outlets (Turnbow, 2021). Water exit from stable outlets helped in reducing sediment transport by allowing more deposits. Her et al. (2016) found that WASCoBs effectively reduced sediment transport by up to 47% at the field level. Similarly, slash-and-burn shifting cultivation with long rotation (1-year farming and 8 years uncultivated) effectively reduced sediment loss. Long rotation helped increase soil cover, thus reducing sediment movement (Valentin et al., 2008).

The literature also showed that the no-tillage condition in farming helped in reducing sediment deposition (Kurothe et al., 2014; Her et al., 2016). The study concluded that minimum disturbance under no-tillage conditions and mulch surface protection effectively reduced sediment concentration. Cover crops were effective in reducing sediment load. Her et al. (2016) found that sediment transport was reduced by 48%–72% with the implementation of a cover crop as they provided continuous cover to the soil. Contour farming also effectively controlled sediment transport (Santhi et al., 2006; Farahani et al., 2016). Growing crops perpendicular to the slope direction prevented sheet and rill erosion and, thus, sediment movement (Santhi et al., 2006). Further, check dams were also considered an effective way to reduce sediment movement. On-stream check-dams were often built upstream of a watershed, which ceases the infiltration of course- and medium-sized sediments (Mishra et al., 2007). The study concluded that the presence of check-dams could reduce sediment transport by up to 64% at a watershed level. These results indicated the effectiveness of practices in reducing sediment transport.

Soil Nutrients—Soil nutrients are a complex fusion of organic remnants in varying stages of decomposition (Hofman, 2004). Conventional practices such as continuous cropping and tillage farming lead to the exhaustion of organic matter in the soil. This deteriorates soil structure, moisture, and nutrient retention (Stockdale et al., 2002). The movement of nutrients poses a severe threat to the agricultural system. The studies have indicated that the movement of nutrients can also occur through an irrigation network resulting in non-point source pollution (Quemada et al., 2013). In the context of soil nutrients, conservation practices aim to reduce nutrient losses (organic matter, nitrogen content, and phosphorus content). Surface runoff and leaching are often considered primary sources of nutrient loss. In such scenarios, practices that effectively control runoff can reduce nutrient loss.

In the context of conservation practices, cover crops were effective in reducing nutrients’ leaching. A meta-analysis found that the winter cover crop has the potential to reduce leaching by up to 70% (Tonitto et al., 2006). Similarly, one study showed nitrate leaching reduction by up to 56% through nonleguminous cover crops (Thapa et al., 2018). They concluded that the effect varied with soil type, cover crops, and climate conditions. It is observed that a combination of practices often increased the efficiency in the performance of practices. Studies have reported the effectiveness of no-tillage with the cover crop, which significantly decreased movement of organic nutrients in the soil (Rickson et al., 2015). Similarly, Baker (2001) found the effectiveness of crop rotation, no tillage, and nutrient management practices in reducing leaching by up to 30%. Retaining the crop residue can also be one feasible way to restore the organic content in the soil, as the top layer has a higher concentration of soil nutrients, making it necessary to conserve the top layer of the soil (Rickson et al., 2015).

Conservation practice referring to filter strips has also shown the ability to slow the runoff rate, allowing the infiltration process to reduce nutrient losses (Magette et al., 1989). Studies have found a reduction of up to 80% in nutrient transport post-implementation of filter strips (Dickey and Vanderholm, 1989). Likewise, in a qualitative study, Gilley and Risse (2000) reported the effectiveness of manure in reducing nutrient loss, while Adimassu et al. (2014) reported the efficacy of graded soil bunds in reducing the organic matter loss, nitrogen, and phosphorus content. These cases indicated that nature-based solutions have the potential to reduce nutrient loss.

5 Influence of conservation practices under climate change

Climate plays a defining role in hydrologic processes and ultimately influences surface runoff, soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss that conservation practices can address. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in the last 1,400 years, 1983–2012 was recorded as the warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere (IPCC, 2014). The increase in temperature and intensified precipitation have resulted in accelerated erosion processes, which has led to poor soil quality and productivity, and loss in organic matter content (Delgado et al., 2013). In the context of agricultural production, literature has cited that the increase in maximum and minimum daily temperature across the globe will hamper farming operations. The water demand for crops will rise, increasing crop water stress (Hatfield and Prueger, 2011). Further, the phenological development of plants will accelerate, leading to a decline in productivity (Herrero and Johnson, 1980; Commuri and Jones, 2001; Salem et al., 2007; Prasad et al., 2008). The increase in temperature may also result in early snowmelt, which will affect the cropping system resulting in crop destruction and irregular freshwater availability (Hatfield et al., 2013), and a significant change in the nutrient load with a difference in the atmospheric conditions (dry, wet, average) will be experienced, which will result in non-point source pollution (Muenich et al., 2016).

Conservation practices can help in reducing climate change’s impact (Delgado et al., 2013; Wagena and Easton, 2018). However, it may be less effective in the case of extreme precipitation and higher CO₂ concentration (Klik and Eitzinger, 2010; Dakhlalla and Parajuli, 2016; Qiu et al., 2020). A study reported that the implementation of cover crops and crop rotation could help in maintaining the quality of the soil, especially in rising temperature that accelerates soil organic matter mineralization (Delgado et al., 2013). Similarly, practices such as tile drainage and strip-cropping, when simulated under changing climate scenarios, have shown positive results in reducing surface runoff, sediment export, and phosphorus content (Wagena and Easton, 2018). Klik and Eitzinger (2010) reported on the effectiveness of no-till conditions and grassland scenarios. The results suggested that practices were still effective in reducing surface runoff. However, there was a reduction of 16%–53% in performance under climate change from baseline scenarios. Shi et al. (2012) reported an increase in total runoff due to extreme events, though soil erosion control practices effectively controlled up to 50%. Conservation practices such as drainage systems, wetlands, hilling, and shifting the planting season were potential ways to combat water management challenges (Delgado et al., 2013). The study of complex interaction among the rising concentration of CO₂, increasing temperature, and water availability is required to analyze the efficacy of the application of conservation practices and to develop future adaptive strategies for their enhancement. The overall results suggested that conservation practices have a significant role in subduing the impacts of climate change.

6 Assessment of conservation practices’ effectiveness in improving peak flow and water quality conditions

The assessment of the effectiveness of conservation practices was carried out through different approaches like observing time series of hydrometeorological and water quality indicators (Kuhnle et al., 2008), runoff monitoring, including runoff samples, to study sediment movement and nutrient loss (Cullum et al., 2010), application of remote sensing (normalized difference vegetation index was used to estimate nutrient uptake efficiency of winter cover crops) (Hively et al., 2009), field monitoring (A study analyzed the effectiveness of vegetated filter strips in reducing nutrient loss and sediment transport at plot scale) (Magette et al., 1989), and modeling, for analyzing the impact on flow, sediment transport, and nutrient loss (Singh et al., 2018). Out of these, most of the studies followed a modeling approach (Santhi et al., 2006; Parajuli et al., 2009; Rao et al., 2009; Osmond et al., 2012a; Michalak et al., 2013). Some applications of models in the context of conservation practices included evaluating how much existing conditions would be improved if different sets of conservation practices were implemented or predicting their impacts to assess other watershed management options (Chaubey et al., 2010).

The availability of complex models and high-performance computational systems to carry out different simulations has encouraged its usage (Sharpley et al., 2002). Studies have applied different models for the assessment. For instance, Hengsdijk et al. (2005) followed a multimodal approach, including crop growth, nutrient monitoring, and a hydrological erosion model to quantify the effectiveness of bunds, mulching, and reforestation in improving water availability, nutrient availability, and reducing erosion. Francesconi et al. (2015) applied the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) model to quantify the effectiveness of nature-based solutions in reducing runoff, sediment transport, and nutrient loss. Zhang et al. (2012) used the Rangeland Hydrology and Erosion Model (RHEM) to see the effectiveness of conservation practices in reducing the impact of climate change on runoff and erosion. A widely used model to quantify the impacts of conservation practices is the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Hengsdijk et al., 2005; Bracmort et al., 2006; Arabi et al., 2008; Chaubey et al., 2010). In this study, we classified assessment approaches into two subsections: model-based and model-free analysis (Table 4).

The assessment of conservation practices across the literature included different types of datasets with information on conservation practices, hydrometeorological variables, water quantification and quality variables, watershed conditions, climate change scenarios, and stakeholder’s socio-economic status. We provided a summary of the information found during our review process (Table 5).

7 Challenges and future directions associated with the assessment of conservation practices

7.1 In the context of data

One of the challenges associated with the assessment of conservation practices is the limited availability of spatially and temporally extensive conservation practice data (Her et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018). The literature review demonstrated that this is a global challenge for researchers. For instance, Sullivan and Batten (2007) created geographic databases of conservation practices based on the information listed in previous files and maps. Jha et al. (2010) and Tomer et al. (2008) extracted the information from field surveys. Gowda et al. (2003) carried out aerial imaging to detect different practices applied in their region, while Pennington et al. (2008) conducted interviews with farmers. Notably, all these studies could not find complete information on conservation practices associated with their region, which limits their ability to carry out an exhaustive assessment. One way to overcome the challenges referring to conservation practices information, land use, soil, and weather data, can be through the advanced application of remote sensing. Although, several studies have considered the application of remote sensing for identifying the type and location of conservation practices to assess their effectiveness (Gowda et al., 2003; Tomer et al., 2008; Osmond et al., 2012b). Future studies can work more towards high-resolution mapping of different conservation practices over time, enhanced land use–land cover (LULC) information, and improved remotely sensed meteorological datasets such as cloud cover, surface temperature, snow, ice cover, etc., across higher temporal and spatial scales. Further, survey data can be considered a reliable source of information as it directly comes from the individuals who have implemented conservation practices and have seen its impact on flooding and water quality (Carletto et al., 2021). They can be used as a validation instrument for other data sources. The information obtained from the opinion of farmers is also helpful in cost-benefit analyses and understanding individuals’ attitudes toward nature-based solutions (Traoré et al., 1998). This review finds that application of such datasets is not frequently seen across the literature, though it can potentially improve the accuracy of assessments. Survey/feedback data can be helpful for assessments at field and watershed scales. However, they may be less effective on a larger scale due to a lack of spatial and temporal resolution in information, leading to sizable errors.

Limited monitoring stations often result in the unavailability of precise spatial data, especially when it comes to modeling non-point source pollution (Sharpley et al., 2002). This inconsistency in information across different sub-watersheds within a watershed presents an enormous task to handle. The extrapolation of these datasets is challenging, as most models are developed for specific soil and climatic conditions (Hofman, 2004). Moreover, with spatial variability, the nature and properties of soil and water samples show dynamic inconsistency (Adimassu et al., 2017). In the absence of sufficient observations, studies usually rely on different calibration parameters from watersheds where similar modeling efforts are performed, which increases the uncertainty associated with assessment (Antolini et al., 2020). The lack of available datasets also limits the model’s ability to capture different conservation practices’ responses to water quality and soil health (Sharpley et al., 2002). In such conditions, there is a need to focus on improving the data quality, which can be achieved by increasing the number of observation networks and improving the efficiency of monitoring devices to detect changes occurring in the watershed (O’Donnell, 2012). Different studies in this context have come up with various methods like the Internet of Things (IoT), such as global positioning-based remote-controlled monitoring (Suma et al., 2017) and smart sensors (Mathurkar et al., 2014). Future studies can focus on improving the monitoring network capacity and performance to increase assessment capabilities.

7.2 In the context of modeling/analysis

The evaluation of conservation practices requires multiple sub-assessments of different management and environmental components related to hydrology, crop growth, pesticide, and more. These sub-assessments are carried out for multiple basins. In such situations, it is essential to include different hydrological, geomorphological, and landscape processes, which are necessary to understand the interactions among them and assess the effectiveness of those practices. One way to understand multiple processes is through the applications of coupled modeling. Studies in the past have applied it in different cases; for example, Cai et al. (2020) applied a coupled rainfall-runoff-erosion model (regional climate model, SCS-CN model, and MUSLE model) to assess the effectiveness of conservation practices in reducing runoff and erosion. Naseri et al. (2021) applied SWAT and a genetic algorithm to see the tradeoff between the implementation of conservation practices and the reduction in sediment yield and flow. Studies can apply such models to understand the effectiveness of conservation practices in sustaining environmental and economic objectives. Future research can also focus on implementing an integrated modeling approach to tackle this problem. This can be an integration of model-free and model-based approaches based on the availability of methods for simulating different hydrologic processes (precipitation, runoff, groundwater, surface water inflow, etc.), tracking water quality parameters, and analyzing the interactions of conservation practices with different ecosystem processes. The results of one approach can be input for another and provide assessments at different scales, i.e., field-to-watershed scale, watershed-to-regional scale, and regional-to-global scale. Furthermore, multi-scale assessments can provide significant value. All these approaches can increase the realism of the assessments and result in the development of more effective conservation plans.

In general, models apply conservation practices homogenously to their resolution capacity. However, actual management can have spatial and temporal heterogeneities at even smaller scales (Antolini et al., 2020). This challenge was observed in many studies; for instance, in Singh et al. (2018), the effectiveness of the filter strip varied spatially; however, it was not accommodated in the model. Further, pastures were simulated homogenously over barren lands. Though there were rocky formations in a few barren lands, the model does not provide the flexibility to account for that. This homogeneity restricts the accurate assessment of the effectiveness of conservation practices. In such cases, studies can look for integrating high-resolution conservation practice information (e.g., remote sensing sources) with existing lithological and hydrological information to improve the simulation ability of models. Likewise, application of machine learning (ML) can be helpful when it comes to the data-intensive assessment of conservation practices’ effectiveness. In the context of agricultural management, ML algorithms have been applied in several past studies (e.g., Liakos et al., 2018; Meshram et al., 2021). These algorithms can be convenient for predicting yield, disease detection, weed detection, crop quality, soil composition, soil moisture, and species recognition, providing rich recommendations to farmers and decision-makers (Liakos et al., 2018; Meshram et al., 2021). However, ML has not been implemented extensively in the assessment of conservation practices and their interactions with hydrology. These algorithms are well poised to address several crucial problems related to the impacts of conservation practices through exploratory data analysis, pattern recognition, feature selection, analysis of spatial-temporal changes and variabilities, prediction of conservation-relevant processes, and understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of different conservation practices.

The results from the modeling approaches have a degree of uncertainty. These uncertainties can stem from various sources. For example, imperfect or limited representation of conservation practices in models due to the lack of available information related to those practices can contribute to uncertainty. Limitations of models due to the underlying assumptions, model structure, and the associated parameters, calibration schemes, etc., can restrict their ability to accurately simulate the coupled processes. Errors propagating from the input and target datasets can also affect the performance of a model and bias its calibration and validation (Sharpley et al., 2002; O’Connell et al., 2007). Models are often restricted to a fixed resolution (point-scale, hillslope-scale, hydrologic response unit-scale, basin-scale, etc.), which further restricts their ability to carry out multi-scale simulations. Tackling these problems requires the development of new modeling schemes and parameterizations that can effectively simulate the coupled nature of the conservation practice impacts on hydrology. Oftentimes, simple structural improvements in a model can lead to a drastic improvement in its performance (Roy et al., 2017). Once an improved structure/parameterization is established, the sensitivity of the associated parameters needs to be thoroughly assessed to get more insights into the underlying physical processes. It is also important to understand how uncertainty propagates through these coupled parameterizations and how improvements in these parameterizations can result in the reduction of uncertainty at different levels. Focus also needs to be drawn toward understanding how the dynamics of these coupled processes vary across scales. Proper characterization of these uncertainties can better inform potential management interventions.

Most of the studies reviewed in our literature have not considered the geological aspects such as lithological properties of strata and their relative position, faults and folds, the orientation of surface, elevation, and natural drainage network conditions in landscapes. This may be due to a lack of information or the inability of the models to simulate them. It is important to note that landscapes are shaped by geomorphological (aeolian, biological, fluvial, etc.) and pedological processes (soil formulation, soil evolution, etc.) and significantly influence soil properties, erosion, and sediment movement (Conacher, 2002). Future studies can include information from geomorphic assessments carried out in the past to perform studies on historical, existing, and future conditions of channels and their response to land-use changes that can help in understanding the impact of geology on soil conditions. This assessment needs to be considered more frequently as findings can be helpful in understanding the underlying causal relationships.

7.3 In the context of management

Studies have found the application of conservation practices sometimes decreases the overall crop productivity (Hatibu et al., 2003; Kinama et al., 2011). One reason is that the application of nature-based measures often utilizes the lands intended for production. In such a case, it is challenging for policymakers, researchers, and farmers to develop different policies and plans to carry out sustainable production. Future studies can also provide helpful insights into developing and implementing government policies and initiatives such as commodity support programs, incentives, and compensation. Further, research can guide the government in including private sectors to promote the application of conservation practices.

The economic perspective of implementing conservation practices is yet to be explored in most of the literature, though some studies have identified this (Schilling et al., 2014; Telles et al., 2019). This requires attention as it plays a vital role in building a strong perception of implementing conservation practices in the mind of farmers, policymakers, and local people. Further, studies have reported the importance of the role of socio-economic factors, policies, and people’s perceptions in adopting conservation practices. Studying these factors can help decision-making be more legitimate, salient, robust, and practical (Bennett et al., 2017). Thus, it is essential to consider all such information while assessing the effectiveness of conservation practice. The social-economic factor also plays a vital role in adopting conservation practices. In such cases, studying social vulnerability can be required before formulating policies or quantifying its risk.

Most studies have directed their efforts toward reducing surface runoff, soil erosion, soil nutrient loss, and sediment transport. But to attain sustainability, it is essential to consider other aspects of the ecosystem. These include the study of quantitative links between conservation practices and ecological responses, the influence of conservation practices on physical habitat quality, etc. (Lizotte et al., 2021). Future studies can focus on those attributes by developing a framework that links conservation practices and programs to the benefits of the ecosystem at national and regional scales.

8 Summary and conclusion

This paper provided an overview of the effectiveness of conservation practices in reducing flooding and improving water quality across watershed and field scales globally, which hindered agricultural productivity and posed severe threats to the ecosystem. The critical issues identified across the literature included peak flows (which often result in flooding), surface runoff, soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss. These issues were often linked to one another and affected the landscape and aquatic systems. We reviewed the mechanisms of frequently cited conservation practices that improved the existing conditions (peak flows, surface runoff, soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss), along with their limitations and effectiveness under climate change. The review found that the combinations of conservation practices were more effective than single-practice implementation. The effectiveness of conservation practices changed with spatial and temporal variations (the same methods were applied in two different areas, and the results were distinct). Further, in some cases, several conservation practices were found to have similar actions or effects on surface runoff, soil erosion, sediment transport, and nutrient loss, making them complex to quantify. The review also realized that assessment of the impact of future conservation practices in the region were affected by uncertainties in the projection of hydroclimatic variables, especially under climate change.

This review aims to help concerned authorities and researchers in improving future planning and management of their area of interest. The adoption of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation and improving water quality has a prominent level of interest on a local, regional, and global scale. The demand for sustainable production by utilizing natural resources effectively is key to meeting the population demand while minimizing environmental impact. In such a scenario, the role of conservation practices will be vital.

References

• 1

  AbdelwahabO. M. M.BingnerR. L.MililloF.GentileF. (2016). Evaluation of alternative management practices with the AnnAGNPS model in the Carapelle watershed. Soil Sci.181 (7), 293–305. 10.1097/ss.0000000000000162

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AdimassuZ.LanganS.JohnstonR.MekuriaW.AmedeT. (2017). Impacts of soil and water conservation practices on crop yield, run-off, soil loss and nutrient loss in Ethiopia: Review and synthesis. Environ. Manag.59 (1), 87–101. 10.1007/s00267-016-0776-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AdimassuZ.MekonnenK.YirgaC.KesslerA. (2014). Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev.25 (6), 554–564. 10.1002/ldr.2182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AdusumilliN.WangH. (2018). Analysis of soil management and water conservation practices adoption among crop and pasture farmers in humid-south of the United States. Int. Soil Water Conservation Res.6 (2), 79–86. 10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.12.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Al-KaisiM. (2019). Management considerations for post-flooding soils. Management11, 7–2011.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AnacheJ. A.WendlandE. C.OliveiraP. T.FlanaganD. C.NearingM. A. (2017). Runoff and soil erosion plot-scale studies under natural rainfall: A meta-analysis of the Brazilian experience. Catena152, 29–39. 10.1016/j.catena.2017.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AntoliniF.TateE.DalzellB.YoungN.JohnsonK.HawthorneP. L. (2020). Flood risk reduction from agricultural best management practices. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.56 (1), 161–179. 10.1111/1752-1688.12812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ArabiM.FrankenbergerJ. R.EngelB. A.ArnoldJ. G. (2008). Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT. Hydrol. Process.22 (16), 3042–3055. 10.1002/hyp.6890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ArayaT.CornelisW. M.NyssenJ.GovaertsB.BauerH.GebreegziabherT.et al (2011). Effects of conservation agriculture on runoff, soil loss and crop yield under rainfed conditions in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manag.27 (3), 404–414. 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00347.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BaiP.LiuX.LiangK.LiuC. (2016). Investigation of changes in the annual maximum flood in the Yellow River basin, China. Quat. Int.392, 168–177. 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BakerJ. L. (2001). Limitations of improved nitrogen management to reduce nitrate leaching and increase use efficiency. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL1, 10–16. 10.1100/tsw.2001.457

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BakkerM. M.GoversG.RounsevellM. D. A. (2004). The crop productivity–erosion relationship: An analysis based on experimental work. CATENA57 (1), 55–76. 10.1016/j.catena.2003.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BarkerD. J.MacAdamJ. W.ButlerT. J.SulcR. M. (2012). Forage and biomass planting. Conservation outcomes from pastureland and hayland practices: Assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. Available at: https://www.afgc.org/wp-content/uploads/ch_2.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BascheA.TullyK.Álvarez-BerríosN. L.ReyesJ.LengnickL.BrownT.et al (2020). Evaluating the untapped potential of U.S. Conservation investments to improve soil and environmental health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.4. 10.3389/fsufs.2020.547876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BennettN. J.RothR.KlainS. C.ChanK.ChristieP.ClarkD. A.et al (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv.205, 93–108. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Blanco-CanquiH.GantzerC. J.AndersonS. H.AlbertsE. E.ThompsonA. L. (2004). Grass barrier and vegetative filter strip effectiveness in reducing runoff, sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loss. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.68 (5), 1670–1678. 10.2136/sssaj2004.1670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BracmortK. S.ArabiM.FrankenbergerJ. R.EngelB. A.ArnoldJ. G. (2006). Modeling long-term water quality impact of structural BMPs. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.49 (2), 367–374. 10.13031/2013.20411

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BrémondP.GrelotF.AgenaisA.-L. (2013). Review article: Economic evaluation of flood damage to agriculture – review and analysis of existing methods. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.13 (10), 2493–2512. 10.5194/nhess-13-2493-2013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CaiM.AnC.GuyC.LuC. (2020). Assessment of soil and water conservation practices in the loess hilly region using a coupled rainfall-runoff-erosion model. Sustainability12 (3), 934. 10.3390/su12030934

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  CarlettoC.DillonA.ZezzaA. (2021). Agricultural data collection to minimize measurement error and maximize coverage. Handb. Agric. Econ.5, 4407–4480. 10.1016/bs.hesagr.2021.10.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ChangJ.WangY.IstanbulluogluE.BaiT.HuangQ.YangD.et al (2015). Impact of climate change and human activities on runoff in the Weihe River Basin, China. Quat. Int.380, 169–179. 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChaubeyI.ChiangL.GitauM. W.MohamedS. (2010). Effectiveness of best management practices in improving water quality in a pasture-dominated watershed. J. Soil Water Conservation65 (6), 424–437. 10.2489/jswc.65.6.424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  CommuriP. D.JonesR. J. (2001). High temperatures during endosperm cell division in maize: A genotypic comparison under in vitro and field conditions. Crop Sci.41 (4), 1122–1130. 10.2135/cropsci2001.4141122x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ConacherA. (2002). A role for geomorphology in integrated catchment management. Aust. Geogr. Stud.40 (2), 179–195. 10.1111/1467-8470.00173

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  CorbeelsM.de GraaffJ.NdahT. H.PenotE.BaudronF.NaudinK.et al (2014). Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in africa: A multi-scale analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.187, 155–170. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  CullumR. F.LockeM. A.KnightS. S. (2010). Effects of conservation reserve program on runoff and lake water quality in an oxbow lake watershed. United States: United States Department of Agriculture.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  DakhlallaA. O.ParajuliP. B. (2016). Evaluation of the best management practices at the watershed scale to attenuate peak streamflow under climate change scenarios. Water Resour. Manag.30 (3), 963–982. 10.1007/s11269-015-1202-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  De LaneyT. A. (1995). Benefits to downstream flood attenuation and water quality as a result of constructed wetlands in agricultural landscapes. J. Soil Water Conservation50 (6), 620–626.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  DelgadoJ. A.NearingM. A.RiceC. W. (2013). Conservation practices for climate change adaptation. Adv. Agron.121, 47–115. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407685-3.00002-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  DermisisD.AbaciO.Thanos PapanicolaouA. N.WilsonC. G. (2010). Evaluating grassed waterway efficiency in southeastern Iowa using WEPP. Soil Use Manag.26 (2), 183–192. 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00257.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  DhaliwalJ. K.PandayD.SahaD.LeeJ.JagadammaS.SchaefferS.et al (2022). Predicting and interpreting cotton yield and its determinants under long-term conservation management practices using machine learning. Comput. Electron. Agric.199, 107107. 10.1016/j.compag.2022.107107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DickeyE. C.VanderholmD. H. (1989). Performance and design of vegetative filters for feedlot runoff treatment. Lincoln Nebraska: University Of Nebraska - Lincoln.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  DillahaT. A.SherrardJ. H.LeeD.ShanholtzV. O.MostaghimiS.MagetteW. L. (1986). Use of vegetative filter strips to minimize sediment and phophorus losses from feedlots: Phase I. Experimental plot studies. Available at: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/46591/WRRC_Bull_151.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Surface runoff from agricultural land. Available at: https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/ESN/Surfacerunoffagriculturallands.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  ErkossaT.ErkossaT.StahrK.GaiserT. (2005). Effect of different methods of land preparation on runoff, soil and nutrient losses from a Vertisol in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manag.21 (2), 253–259. 10.1079/SUM2005319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  ErsedoA. E. (2021). Investigation of farmers’ perception on the problem of soil erosion and conservation knowledge in Anlemo Woreda, Hadiya zone, Snnpr. Int. J. Leg. Stud. ( IJOLS )9 (1), 121–138. 10.5604/01.3001.0015.2289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  EvrardO.VandaeleK.van WesemaelB.BieldersC. L. (2008). A grassed waterway and earthen dams to control muddy floods from a cultivated catchment of the Belgian loess belt. Geomorphology100 (3–4), 419–428. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.01.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  FarahaniS.SoheilifardF.Amin AsoodarM. (2016). Effects of contour farming on runoff and soil erosion reduction: A review study. Elixir Agric.101 (1), 44089–44093.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  FaulknerS.BarrowW.KeelandB.WallsS.TelescoD. (2011). Effects of conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecol. Appl.21 (3), S31–S48. 10.1890/10-0592.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  FrancesconiW.SmithD. R.FlanaganD. C.HuangC. H.WangX. (2015). Modeling conservation practices in APEX: From the field to the watershed. J. Gt. Lakes. Res.41 (3), 760–769. 10.1016/j.jglr.2015.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  FrancesconiW.SmithD. R.HeathmanG. C.WangX.WilliamsC. O. (2014). Monitoring and APEX modeling of no-till and reduced-till in tile-drained agricultural landscapes for water quality. Trans. ASABE57 (3), 777–789. 10.13031/trans.57.10332

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  GanasriB. P.RameshH. (2016). Assessment of soil erosion by RUSLE model using remote sensing and GIS-A case study of Nethravathi Basin. Geosci. Front.7 (6), 953–961. 10.1016/j.gsf.2015.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  GarrityD. P. (1999). Contour farming based on natural vegetative strips: Expanding the scope for increased food crop production on sloping lands in Asia. Environ. Dev. Sustain.1 (3–4), 323–336. 10.1023/a:1010091904395

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  GathaguJ.MouradK.SangJ. (2018). Effectiveness of contour farming and filter strips on ecosystem services. Water10 (10), 1312. 10.3390/w10101312

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  GerlaP. J. (2007). Estimating the effect of cropland to prairie conversion on peak storm run‐off. Restor. Ecol.15 (4), 720–730. 10.1111/j.1526-100x.2007.00284.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  GillespieA. R.JoseS.BenjaminT. J.HooverW. L.SeifertJ. R., (2000). Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern USA: 1. Production physiology. Agrofor. Syst.48 (1), 25–40. 10.1023/A:1006285205553

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  GilleyJ. E.RisseL. M. (2000). Runoff and soil loss as affected by the application of manure. Trans. ASAE43 (6), 1583–1588. 10.13031/2013.3058

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  GowdaP. H.MullaD. J.DalzellB. J. (2003). Examining the targeting of conservation tillage practices to steep vs. flat landscapes in the Minnesota River Basin. J. Soil Water Conservation58 (1), 53–57.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  GravesA. R.BurgessP. J.PalmaJ. H. N.HerzogF.MorenoG.BertomeuM.et al (2007). Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable, and forestry systems in three European countries. Ecol. Eng.29 (4), 434–449. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  GruenewaldH.BrandtB. K. V.SchneiderB. U.BensO.KendziaG.HüttlR. F. (2007). Agroforestry systems for the production of woody biomass for energy transformation purposes. Ecol. Eng.29 (4), 319–328. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.09.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  GuptaA. K.RudraR. P.GharabaghiB.DaggupatiP.GoelP. K.ShuklaR. (2019). CoBAGNPS: A toolbox for simulating water and sediment control basin, WASCoB through agnps model. CATENA179, 49–65. 10.1016/j.catena.2019.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  HaM.WuM.TomerM. D.GassmanP. W.IsenhartT. M.ArnoldJ. G.et al (2020). Biomass production with conservation practices for two Iowa watersheds. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.56 (6), 1030–1044. 10.1111/1752-1688.12880

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  HatfieldJ. L.CruseR. M.TomerM. D. (2013). Convergence of agricultural intensification and climate change in the Midwestern United States: Implications for soil and water conservation. Mar. Freshw. Res.64 (5), 423. 10.1071/MF12164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  HatfieldJ. L.PruegerJ. H. (2011). “Agroecology: Implications for plant response to climate change,” in Crop adaptation to climate change (United States: Wiley), 27–43. 10.1002/9780470960929.ch3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  HatibuN.YoungM. D. B.GowingJ. W.MahooH. F.MziraiO. B. (2003). Developing improved dryland cropping systems for maize in semi-arid Tanzania. Part 1: Experimental evidence for the benefits of rainwater harvesting. Exp. Agric.39 (3), 279–292. 10.1017/S0014479703001285

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  HeathcoteA. J.FilstrupC. T.DowningJ. A. (2013). Watershed sediment losses to lakes accelerating despite agricultural soil conservation efforts. PLoS ONE8 (1), e53554. 10.1371/journal.pone.0053554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  HengsdijkH.MeijerinkG. W.MosuguM. E. (2005). Modeling the effect of three soil and water conservation practices in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.105 (1–2), 29–40. 10.1016/j.agee.2004.06.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  HerY.ChaubeyI.FrankenbergerJ.SmithD. (2016). Effect of conservation practices implemented by USDA programs at field and watershed scales. J. Soil Water Conservation71 (3), 249–266. 10.2489/jswc.71.3.249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  HernandezM.NearingM. A.StoneJ. J.PiersonF. B.WeiH.SpaethK. E.et al (2013). Application of a rangeland soil erosion model using National Resources Inventory data in southeastern Arizona. J. Soil Water Conserv.68 (6), 512–525. 10.2489/jswc.68.6.512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  HerreroM. P.JohnsonR. R. (1980). High temperature stress and pollen viability of maize 1. Crop Sci.20 (6), 796–800. 10.2135/cropsci1980.0011183X002000060030x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  HerronC. L.RuarkM. D.MinksK. R. (2016). Conservation benefits of a grade stabilization structure. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin--Extension.

  • Google Scholar

• 62

  HerwegK.LudiE. (1999). The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures—Case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. CATENA36 (1–2), 99–114. 10.1016/S0341-8162(99)00004-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  HesselR.MessingI.LidingC.RitsemaC.StolteJ. (2003). Soil erosion simulations of land use scenarios for a small Loess Plateau catchment. Catena54 (1-2), 289–302. 10.1016/s0341-8162(03)00070-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  HivelyW. D.LangM.McCartyG. W.KepplerSadeghiA.McConnellL. L. (2009). Using satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency. J. soil water conservation64 (5), 303–313. 10.2489/jswc.64.5.303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  HobbsP. R.SayreK.GuptaR. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.363 (1491), 543–555. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  HofmanG. (2004). Soil and plant nitrogen soil and plant nitrogen. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oswald-Cleemput/publication/265247400_Soil_and_Plant_Nitrogen/links/540e14890cf2f2b29a3a770c/Soil-and-Plant-Nitrogen.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  HovisM.HollingerJ. C.CubbageF.ShearT.DollB.Kurki-FoxJ. J.et al (2021). Natural infrastructure practices as potential flood storage and reduction for farms and rural communities in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Sustainability13 (16), 9309. 10.3390/su13169309

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  HuX.McIsaacG. F.DavidM. B.LouwersC. A. L. (2007). Modeling riverine nitrate export from an East-Central Illinois watershed using SWAT. J. Environ. Qual.36 (4), 996–1005. 10.2134/jeq2006.0228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  HuaL.HeX.YuanY.NanH. (2012). Assessment of runoff and sediment yields using the AnnAGNPS model in a three-gorge watershed of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. public health9 (5), 1887–1907. 10.3390/ijerph9051887

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  HuangM.ZhangL.GallichandJ. (2003). Runoff responses to afforestation in a watershed of the Loess Plateau, China. Hydrol. Process.17 (13), 2599–2609. 10.1002/hyp.1281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  HugginsD. R.ReganoldJ. P. (2008). No-till: The quiet revolution. Sci. Am.299 (1), 70–77. 10.1038/scientificamerican0708-70

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  HurniH. (1996). Precious earth: From soil and water conservation to sustainable land management. Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  JaggerP.PenderJ. (2003). The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands: The case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ.5 (1), 83–95. 10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00078-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  JhaM. K.SchillingK. E.GassmanP. W.WolterC. F. (2010). Targeting land-use change for nitrate-nitrogen load reductions in an agricultural watershed. J. Soil Water Conservation65 (6), 342–352. 10.2489/jswc.65.6.342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  JobeA.KalraA.IbendahlE. (2018). Conservation Reserve Program effects on floodplain land cover management. J. Environ. Manag.214, 305–314. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  KainiP.ArtitaK.NicklowJ. W. (2008). Designing BMPs at a watershed-scale using SWAT and a genetic algorithm. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008: Ahupua’A, Honolulu, Hawaii, United, May 12–16, 2008, 1–10. 10.1061/40976(316)125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  KainiP.ArtitaK.NicklowJ. W. (2012). Optimizing structural best management practices using SWAT and genetic algorithm to improve water quality goals. Water Resour. Manag.26 (7), 1827–1845. 10.1007/s11269-012-9989-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  KalantariZ.LyonS. W.FolkesonL.FrenchH. K.StolteJ.JanssonP.-E.et al (2014). Quantifying the hydrological impact of simulated changes in land use on peak discharge in a small catchment. Sci. Total Environ.466–467, 741–754. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  KannanN.JeongJ.SrinivasanR. (2011). Hydrologic modeling of a canal-irrigated agricultural watershed with irrigation best management practices: Case study. J. Hydrologic Eng.16 (9), 746–757. 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000364

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  KassamA.DerpschR.FriedrichT. (2014). Global achievements in soil and water conservation: The case of Conservation Agriculture. Int. Soil Water Conservation Res.2 (1), 5–13. 10.1016/S2095-6339(15)30009-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  KimY. J.GeohringL. D.JeonJ. H.CollickA. S.GiriS. K.SteenhuisT. S. (2006). Evaluation of the effectiveness of vegetative filter strips for phosphorus removal with the use of a tracer. J. Soil Water Conservation61 (5), 293–302.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  KinamaJ. M.OngC. K.StigterC. J.NgJ. K. (2011). Hedgerow intercropping maize or cowpea/senna for drymatter production in Semi-Arid Eastern Kenya. J. Agric. Sci. Technol.1, 372–384.

  • Google Scholar

• 83

  KingK. W.SmileyP. C.BakerB. J.FauseyN. R. (2008). Validation of paired watersheds for assessing conservation practices in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed, Ohio. J. Soil Water Conservation63 (6), 380–395. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.380

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  KingS. L.KeelandB. D. (1999). Evaluation of reforestation in the lower Mississippi river alluvial valley. Restor. Ecol.7 (4), 348–359. 10.1046/j.1526-100X.1999.72029.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  KlikA.EitzingerJ. (2010). Impact of climate change on soil erosion and the efficiency of soil conservation practices in Austria. J. Agric. Sci.148 (5), 529–541. 10.1017/S0021859610000158

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  KnowlerD.BradshawB. (2007). Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy32 (1), 25–48. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  KuhnleR. A.BingnerR. L.AlonsoC. V.WilsonC. G.SimonA. (2008). Conservation practice effects on sediment load in the goodwin Creek experimental watershed. J. Soil Water Conservation63 (6), 496–503. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.496

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  KurotheR. S.KumarG.SinghR.SinghH. B.TiwariS. P.VishwakarmaA. K.et al (2014). Effect of tillage and cropping systems on runoff, soil loss and crop yields under semiarid rainfed agriculture in India. Soil Tillage Res.140, 126–134. 10.1016/j.still.2014.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  LahmarR. (2010). Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe. Land Use Policy27 (1), 4–10. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  LalR. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability7 (5), 5875–5895. 10.3390/su7055875

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  LiakosK.BusatoP.MoshouD.PearsonS.BochtisD. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors18 (8), 2674. 10.3390/s18082674

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  LittonL. L.LohnesR. A. (1967). Soil-cement for use in stream channel grade-stabilization structures. Transp. Res. Rec.839, 33–38.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  LizotteR. E.SmileyP. C.GillespieR. B.KnightS. S. (2021). Agricultural conservation practices and aquatic ecological responses. Water13 (12), 1687. 10.3390/w13121687

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  LormandJ. R. (1988). The effects of urban vegetation on stormwater runoff in an arid environment. Tucson, AZ: University Of Arizona.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  LuoK.TaoF.DengX.MoiwoJ. P. (2017). Changes in potential evapotranspiration and surface runoff in 1981-2010 and the driving factors in Upper Heihe River Basin in Northwest China. Hydrol. Process.31 (1), 90–103. 10.1002/hyp.10974

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  MagetteW. L.BrinsfieldR. B.PalmerR. E.WoodJ. D. (1989). Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Trans. ASAE32 (2), 0663–0667. 10.13031/2013.31054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  MandalA.BhardwajN. (2020). “Blocking stones perceived by farmers in utilizing the soil health management practices – a case study of West Bengal,” in Proceedings of the International Conference On Agriculture and Allied Sciences: The Productivity, Food Security and Ecology, Viswavidyalaya, India, 13th to 14th August 2018.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  MathurkarS. S.PatelN. R.LanjewarR. B.SomkuwarR. S. (2014). Smart sensors based monitoring system for agriculture using field programmable gate array. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies [ICCPCT-2014], Nagercoil, India, 20-21 March 2014, (pp. 339–344).

  • Google Scholar

• 99

  MeadR.WilleyR. W. (1980). The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Exp. Agric.16 (3), 217–228. 10.1017/S0014479700010978

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  MertenG. H.AraújoA. G.BiscaiaR. C. M.BarbosaG. M. C.ConteO. (2015). No-till surface runoff and soil losses in southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Res.152, 85–93. 10.1016/j.still.2015.03.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  MeshramV.PatilK.MeshramV.HanchateD.RamktekeS. D. (2021). Machine learning in agriculture domain: A state-of-art survey. Artif. Intell. Life Sci.1, 100010. 10.1016/j.ailsci.2021.100010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MichalakA. M.AndersonE. J.BeletskyD.BolandS.BoschN. S.BridgemanT. B.et al (2013). Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.110 (16), 6448–6452. 10.1073/pnas.1216006110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  MielkeL. N. (1985). Performance of water and sediment control basins in northeastern Nebraska. J. Soil and Water Conservation40 (6), 524–528.

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  MishraA.FroebrichJ.GassmanP. W. (2007). Evaluation of the SWAT model for assessing sediment control structures in a small watershed in India. Trans. ASABE50 (2), 469–477. 10.13031/2013.22637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  MitschW. J.GosselinkJ. G. (2000). The value of wetlands: Importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecol. Econ.35 (1), 25–33. 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00165-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  MoriasiD. N.GowdaP. H.ArnoldJ. G.MullaD. J.AleS.SteinerJ. L. (2013). Modeling the impact of nitrogen fertilizer application and tile drain configuration on nitrate leaching using SWAT. Agric. Water Manag.130, 36–43. 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  Mosebo FernandesA. C.Quintero GonzalezR.Lenihan-ClarkeM. A.Leslie TrotterE. F.Jokar ArsanjaniJ. (2020). Machine learning for conservation planning in a changing climate. Sustainability12 (18), 7657. 10.3390/su12187657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  MudgalA.BaffautC.AndersonS. H.SadlerE. J.ThompsonA. L. (2010). APEX model assessment of variable landscapes on runoff and dissolved herbicides. Trans. ASABE53 (4), 1047–1058. 10.13031/2013.32595

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  MuenichR. L.KalcicM.ScaviaD. (2016). Evaluating the impact of legacy P and agricultural conservation practices on nutrient loads from the Maumee River Watershed. Environ. Sci. Technol.50 (15), 8146–8154. 10.1021/acs.est.6b01421

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  MuliM. N.OnwongaR. N.KarukuG. N.KathumoV. M.NandukuleM. O. (2015). Simulating soil moisture under different tillage practices, cropping systems and organic fertilizers using cropsyst model. Kenya: Matuu division.

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Munoz-CarpenaR.ParsonsJ. E.GilliamJ. W. (1999). Modeling hydrology and sediment transport in vegetative filter strips. J. hydrology214 (1-4), 111–129. 10.1016/s0022-1694(98)00272-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  MupangwaW.ChipinduL.NyagumboI.MkuhlaniS.SisitoG. (2020). Evaluating machine learning algorithms for predicting maize yield under conservation agriculture in Eastern and Southern Africa. SN Appl. Sci.2 (952). 10.1007/s42452-020-2711-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  MurphyS. D.ClementsD. R.BelaoussoffS.KevanP. G.SwantonC. J. (2006). Promotion of weed species diversity and reduction of weed seedbanks with conservation tillage and crop rotation. Weed Sci.54 (1), 69–77. 10.1614/ws-04-125r1.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  NaseriF.AzariM.DastoraniM. T. (2021). Spatial optimization of soil and water conservation practices using coupled SWAT model and evolutionary algorithm. Int. Soil Water Conservation Res.9 (4), 566–577. 10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  NgwiraA. R.AuneJ. B.ThierfelderC. (2014). DSSAT modelling of conservation agriculture maize response to climate change in Malawi. Soil Tillage Res.143, 85–94. 10.1016/j.still.2014.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  O’ConnellE.EwenJ.O’DonnellG.QuinnP. (2007). Is there a link between agricultural land-use management and flooding?Hydrology Earth Syst. Sci.11 (1), 96–107. 10.5194/hess-11-96-2007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  O’DonnellT. K. (2012). Assessing watershed transport of atrazine and nitrate to evaluate conservation practice effects and advise future monitoring strategies. Environ. Manag.49 (1), 267–284. 10.1007/s00267-011-9780-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  OgawaH.MaleJ. W. (1983). The flood mitigation potential of inland wetlands. United States: Water Resources Research Center Publication.

  • Google Scholar

• 119

  OlkebaB.ShoebQ.BobeB. (2012). Effects of straw mulch and farmyard manure on runoff, erosion, in-situ water conservation, and yield and yield components of wheat at the highlands of Bale, south eastern Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7(44), 5879–5886. 10.5897/AJAR12.1467

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  OsmondD. L.MealsD.HoagD.ArabiM.LuloffA.JenningsG.et al (2012b). Improving conservation practices programming to protect water quality in agricultural watersheds: Lessons learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture-Conservation Effects Assessment Project. J. Soil Water Conservation67 (5), 122A–127A. 10.2489/jswc.67.5.122A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  OsmondD. L.TedescoL.TurcoR.ProkopyL.FrankenbergerJ.ShivelyG.et al (2012a). Eagle Creek watershed, Indiana: National institute of food and agriculture–conservation effects assessment project. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  IPCC (2014). “Climate change 2014: Synthesis report,” in Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental Panel on climate change [core writing team. Editors PachauriR. K.MeyerL. A. (Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC), 151.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  ParajuliP. B.NelsonN. O.FreesL. D.MankinK. R. (2009). Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA-CEAP agricultural watersheds in south-central Kansas. Hydrol. Process.23 (5), 748–763. 10.1002/hyp.7174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  PenningtonJ. H.SteeleM. A.TeagueK. A.KurzB.GburE.PoppJ.et al (2008). Breaking ground: A cooperative approach to collecting information on conservation practices from an initially uncooperative population. J. Soil Water Conservation63 (6), 208A–211A. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.208A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  PimentelD.HarveyC.ResosudarmoP.SinclairK.KurzD.McNairM.et al (1995). Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science267 (5201), 1117–1123. 10.1126/science.267.5201.1117

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  PrasadP. V. V.PisipatiS. R.RisticZ.BukovnikU.FritzA. K. (2008). Impact of nighttime temperature on physiology and growth of spring wheat. Crop Sci.48 (6), 2372–2380. 10.2135/cropsci2007.12.0717

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  QiuJ.ShenZ.HouX.XieH.LengG. (2020). Evaluating the performance of conservation practices under climate change scenarios in the Miyun Reservoir Watershed, China. Ecol. Eng.143, 105700. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105700

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  QuemadaM.BaranskiM.Nobel-de LangeM. N. J.VallejoA.CooperJ. M. (2013). Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.174, 1–10. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  QuinkensteinA.WölleckeJ.BöhmC.GrünewaldH.FreeseD.SchneiderB. U.et al (2009). Ecological benefits of the alley cropping agroforestry system in sensitive regions of Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy12 (8), 1112–1121. 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  RaoN. S.EastonZ. M.SchneidermanE. M.ZionM. S.LeeD. R.SteenhuisT. S. (2009). Modeling watershed-scale effectiveness of agricultural best management practices to reduce phosphorus loading. J. Environ. Manag.90 (3), 1385–1395. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  RenschlerC. S.LeeT. (2005). Spatially distributed assessment of short- and long-term impacts of multiple best management practices in agricultural watersheds. J. Soil Water Conservation60 (6), 446–456.

  • Google Scholar

• 132

  RichardsonC. W.BucksD. A.SadlerE. J. (2008). The conservation effects assessment project benchmark watersheds: Synthesis of preliminary findings. J. Soil Water Conservation63 (6), 590–604. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  RicksonR. J.DeeksL. K.GravesA.HarrisJ. A. H.KibblewhiteM. G.SakrabaniR. (2015). Input constraints to food production: The impact of soil degradation. Food Secur.7 (2), 351–364. 10.1007/s12571-015-0437-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  RivestD.CogliastroA.BradleyR. L.OlivierA. (2010). Intercropping hybrid poplar with soybean increases soil microbial biomass, mineral N supply and tree growth. Agrofor. Syst.80 (1), 33–40. 10.1007/s10457-010-9342-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  RobertsonD. M.SaadD. A. (2013). SPARROW models used to understand nutrient sources in the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin. J. Environ. Qual.42 (5), 1422–1440. 10.2134/jeq2013.02.0066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  RoyT.GuptaH. V.Serrat-CapdevilaA.ValdesJ. B. (2017). Using satellite-based evapotranspiration estimates to improve the structure of a simple conceptual rainfall–runoff model. Hydrology Earth Syst. Sci.21 (2), 879–896. 10.5194/hess-21-879-2017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  SalemM. A.KakaniV. G.KotiS.ReddyK. R. (2007). Pollen-based screening of soybean genotypes for high temperatures. Crop Sci.47 (1), 219–231. 10.2135/cropsci2006.07.0443

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  SanthiC.KannanN.WhiteM.Di LuzioM.ArnoldJ. G.WangX.et al (2014). An integrated modeling approach for estimating the water quality benefits of conservation practices at the river basin scale. J. Environ. Qual.43 (1), 177–198. 10.2134/jeq2011.0460

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  SanthiC.SrinivasanR.ArnoldJ. G.WilliamsJ. R. (2006). A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas. Environ. Model. Softw.21 (8), 1141–1157. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.05.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  SchillingK. E.GassmanP. W.KlingC. L.CampbellT.JhaM. K.WolterC. F.et al (2014). The potential for agricultural land use change to reduce flood risk in a large watershed. Hydrol. Process.28 (8), 3314–3325. 10.1002/hyp.9865

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  SchillingK. E.WolterC. F. (2009). Modeling nitrate-nitrogen load reduction strategies for the Des Moines River, Iowa using SWAT. Environ. Manag.44 (4), 671–682. 10.1007/s00267-009-9364-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  SenaviratneG. A.BaffautC.LoryJ. A.UdawattaR. P.NelsonN. O.WilliamsJ. R.et al (2018). Improved APEX model simulation of buffer water quality benefits at field scale. Trans. ASABE61 (2), 603–616. 10.13031/trans.12655

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  ShafeeqP. M.AggarwalP.KrishnanP.RaiV.PramanikP.DasT. K. (2020). Modeling the temporal distribution of water, ammonium-N, and nitrate-N in the root zone of wheat using HYDRUS-2D under conservation agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 2197–2216. 10.1007/s11356-019-06642-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  ShanwadU. K.PatilV. C.GowdaH. H.DasogG. S. (2008). Application of remote sensing technology for impact assessment of watershed development programme. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens.36, 375–386. 10.1007/s12524-008-0037-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  SharpleyA. N.KleinmanP. J. A.McDowellR. W.GitauM.BryantR. B. (2002). Modeling phosphorus transport in agricultural watersheds: Processes and possibilities. J. Soil Water Conservation57 (6), 425–439.

  • Google Scholar

• 146

  ShiC.ZhouY.FanX.ShaoW. (2012). A study on the annual runoff change and its relationship with water and soil conservation practices and climate change in the middle Yellow River basin. CATENA100, 31–41. 10.1016/j.catena.2012.08.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  SinghG.SaraswatD.SharpleyA. (2018). A sensitivity analysis of impacts of conservation practices on water quality in L’anguille River watershed, Arkansas. Ark. Water10 (4), 443. 10.3390/w10040443

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  SouleM. J.TegeneA.WiebeK. D. (2000). Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am. J. Agric. Econ.82 (4), 993–1005. 10.1111/0002-9092.00097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  StockdaleE. A.ShepherdM. A.FortuneS.CuttleS. P. (2002). Soil fertility in organic farming systems – fundamentally different?Soil Use Manag.18 (3), 301–308. 10.1079/SUM2002143

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  SullivanD. G.BattenH. L. (2007). Little River experimental watershed, tifton, Georgia, United States: A historical geographic database of conservation practice implementation. Water Resour. Res.43 (9), 1–5. 10.1029/2007WR006143

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  SultanD.TsunekawaA.HaregeweynN.AdgoE.TsuboM.MesheshaD. T.et al (2018). Efficiency of soil and water conservation practices in different agro-ecological environments in the Upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. J. Arid. Land10, 249–263. 10.1007/s40333-018-0097-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  SumaN.SamsonS. R.SaranyaS.ShanmugapriyaG.SubhashriR. (2017). IOT based smart agriculture monitoring system. Int. J. Recent Innovation Trends Comput. Commun.5 (2), 177–181.

  • Google Scholar

• 153

  SunB.ChenX.ZhangX.LiangA.WhalenJ. K.McLaughlinN. B. (2020). Greater fungal and bacterial biomass in soil large macropores under no-tillage than mouldboard ploughing. Eur. J. Soil Biol.97, 103155. 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.103155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  SwantonC. J.ClementsD. R.DerksenD. A. (1993). Weed succession under conservation tillage: A hierarchical framework for research and management. A Hierarchical Framew. Res. Manag.7 (2), 286–297. 10.1017/s0890037x00027615

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  SweeneyB. W.NewboldJ. D. (2014). Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: A literature review. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.50 (3), 560–584. 10.1111/jawr.12203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  TellesT. S.LourençoM. A. P.OliveiraJ. F.CostaG. V.BarbosaG. M. C. (2019). Soil conservation practices in a watershed in Southern Brazil. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc.91 (3), e20180578. 10.1590/0001-3765201920180578

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  ThapaR.MirskyS. B.TullyK. L. (2018). Cover crops reduce nitrate leaching in agroecosystems:a global meta-analysis. J. Environ. Qual.47 (6), 1400–1411. 10.2134/jeq2018.03.0107

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  TomerM. D.MoormanT. B.JamesD. E.HadishG.RossiC. G. (2008). Assessment of the Iowa river’s south Fork watershed: Part 2. Conservation practices. J. Soil Water Conservation63 (6), 371–379. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.371

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  TonittoC.DavidM. B.DrinkwaterL. E. (2006). Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: A meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.112 (1), 58–72. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.07.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  TraoréN.LandryR.AmaraN. (1998). On-farm adoption of conservation practices: The role of farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Econ.74, 114–127. 10.2307/3147217

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  TsonkovaP.BöhmC.QuinkensteinA.FreeseD. (2012). Ecological benefits provided by alley cropping systems for production of woody biomass in the temperate region: A review. Agrofor. Syst.85 (1), 133–152. 10.1007/s10457-012-9494-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  TurnbowK. (2021). The impacts of water and sediment control basins (WASCoBs) on water quality near atterberry, Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

  • Google Scholar

• 163

  ValentinC.AgusF.AlambanR.BoosanerA.BricquetJ. P.et al (2008). Runoff and sediment losses from 27 upland catchments in Southeast Asia: Impact of rapid land use changes and conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.128 (4), 225–238. 10.1016/j.agee.2008.06.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  VanackerV.GoversG.BarrosS.PoesenJ.DeckersJ. (2003). The effect of short-term socio-economic and demographic change on landuse dynamics and its corresponding geomorphic response with relation to water erosion in a tropical mountainous catchment, Ecuador. Landsc. Ecol.18 (1), 1–15. 10.1023/A:1022902914221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  VoorheesW. B.LindstromM. J. (1983). Soil compaction constraints on conservation tillage in the northern Corn Belt. J. Soil and Water Conservation28 (3), 307–311.

  • Google Scholar

• 166

  WagenaM. B.EastonZ. M. (2018). Agricultural conservation practices can help mitigate the impact of climate change. Sci. Total Environ.635, 132–143. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.110

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  WallaceC. W.FlanaganD. C.EngelB. A. (2017). Quantifying the effects of conservation practice implementation on predicted runoff and chemical losses under climate change. Agric. Water Manag.186, 51–65. 10.1016/j.agwat.2017.02.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  WildT. B.DavisA. P. (2009). Simulation of the performance of a storm-water bmp. J. Environ. Eng.135 (12), 1257–1267. 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  YoungA. (1989). Agroforestry for soil conservation.

  • Google Scholar

• 170

  YuanY.LockeM. A.BingnerR. L. (2008). Annualized agricultural non-point source model application for Mississippi Delta Beasley Lake watershed conservation practices assessment. J. soil water conservation63 (6), 542–551. 10.2489/jswc.63.6.542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  ZhangL.HuQ.TangZ. (2022). Using sentinel-2 imagery and machine learning algorithms to assess the inundation status of Nebraska conservation easements during 2018–2021. Remote Sens.14 (17), 4382. 10.3390/rs14174382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  ZhangY.HernandezM.AnsonE.NearingM. A.WeiH.StoneJ. J.et al (2012). Modeling climate change effects on runoff and soil erosion in southeastern Arizona rangelands and implications for mitigation with conservation practices. J. soil water conservation67 (5), 390–405. 10.2489/jswc.67.5.390

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  ZhaoG.MuX.WenZ.WangF.GaoP. (2013). Soil erosion, conservation, and eco-environment changes in the loess plateau of China. Land Degrad. Dev.24 (5), 499–510. 10.1002/ldr.2246

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar