Arthropods are kin: Operationalizing Indigenous data sovereignty to respectfully utilize genomic data from Indigenous lands

Indigenous peoples have cultivated biodiverse agroecosystems since time immemorial. The rise of metagenomics and high-throughput sequencing technologies in biodiversity studies has rapidly expanded the scale of data collection from these lands. A respectful approach to the data life cycle grounded in the sovereignty of indigenous communities is imperative to not perpetuate harm. In this paper, we operationalize an indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) framework to outline realistic considerations for genomic data that span data collection, governance, and communication. As a case study for this framework, we use arthropod genomic data collected from diversified and simplified farm sites close to and far from natural habitats within a historic Kānaka 'Ōiwi (Indigenous Hawaiian) agroecosystem. Diversified sites had the highest Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) richness for native and introduced arthropods. There may be a significant spillover effect between forest and farm sites, as farm sites near a natural habitat had higher OTU richness than those farther away. We also provide evidence that management factors such as the number of Polynesian crops cultivated may drive arthropod community composition. Through this case study, we emphasize the context-dependent opportunities and challenges for operationalizing IDS by utilizing participatory research methods, expanding novel data management tools through the Local Contexts Hub, and developing and nurturing community partnerships-all while highlighting the potential of agroecosystems for arthropod conservation. Overall, the workflow and the example presented here can help researchers take tangible steps to achieve IDS, which often seems elusive with the expanding use of genomic data.

Interviews with farmers from the US corn belt highlight opportunity for improved decision support systems and continued structural barriers to farmland diversification

Diversifying high-input, monocropped landscapes like the US Corn Belt would provide both economic and ecosystem service benefits to the agricultural landscape. Decision support systems (DSS) and digital agriculture could help farmers decide if diversification is suitable for their operation. However, adoption of DSS by farmers remains low, likely due to lack of farmer engagement before and during the DSS development process. This study aimed to better understand the tasks, tools, and people involved in implementing farmland diversification with the goal to inform design of agricultural DSS. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 farmers who had diversified their corn/soybean cropland with government-supported conservation programs (e.g., CRP, wetlands) and alternative crops (e.g., small grains, pasture) in the past four years. Interview data was transcribed and then analyzed using affinity diagramming. Results show farmers needed DSS to layer multiple sources of data and observations over several years to identify field productivity trends and drivers; spatial orientation of practices to fit management and field constraints; matching operation goals to alternative practices; financial planning and market exploration; and information on promising emerging practices like subsidized pollinator habitat. However, the interviews also highlighted structural barriers to diversification that DSS cannot or can only partially address. These included social pressures; market access; crop insurance policy; and quality of relationships with governmental agencies. Results indicate better DSS design can empower individual farmers to diversify cropland, but structural interventions will be needed to successfully diversify the agricultural landscape and support economic and ecosystem health.

Joint environmental and social benefits from diversified agriculture

Agricultural simplification continues to expand at the expense of more diverse forms of agriculture. This simplification, for example, in the form of intensively managed monocultures, poses a risk to keeping the world within safe and just Earth system boundaries. Here, we estimated how agricultural diversification simultaneously affects social and environmental outcomes. Drawing from 24 studies in 11 countries across 2655 farms, we show how five diversification strategies focusing on livestock, crops, soils, noncrop plantings, and water conservation benefit social (e.g., human well-being, yields, and food security) and environmental (e.g., biodiversity, ecosystem services, and reduced environmental externalities) outcomes. We found that applying multiple diversification strategies creates more positive outcomes than individual management strategies alone. To realize these benefits, well-designed policies are needed to incentivize the adoption of multiple diversification strategies in unison.

Remote sensing of hedgerows, windbreaks, and winter cover crops in California's Central Coast reveals low adoption but hotspots of use

Non-crop vegetation, such as hedgerows and cover crops, are important on-farm diversification practices that support biodiversity and ecosystem services; however, information about their rates and patterns of adoption are scarce. We used satellite and aerial imagery coupled with machine learning classification to map the use of hedgerows/windbreaks and winter cover crops in California's Central Coast, a globally important agricultural area of intensive fresh produce production. We expected that adoption of both practices would be relatively low and unevenly distributed across the landscape, with higher levels of adoption found in marginal farmland and in less intensively cultivated areas where the pressure to remove non-crop vegetation may be lower. Our remote sensing classification revealed that only ~6% of farmland had winter cover crops in 2021 and 0.26% of farmland had hedgerows or windbreaks in 2018. Thirty-seven percent of ranch parcels had cover crops on at least 5% of the ranch while 22% of ranches had at least one hedgerow/windbreak. Nearly 16% of farmland had other annual winter crops, some of which could provide services similar to cover crops; however, 60% of farmland had bare soil over the winter study period, with the remainder of farmland classified as perennial crops or strawberries. Hotspot analysis showed significant areas of adoption of both practices in the hillier regions of all counties. Finally, qualitative interviews revealed that adoption patterns were likely driven by interrelated effects of topography, land values, and farming models, with organic, diversified farms implementing these practices in less ideal, lower-value farmland. This study demonstrates how remote sensing coupled with qualitative research can be used to map and interpret patterns of important diversification practices, with implications for tracking policy interventions and targeting resources to assist farmers motivated to expand adoption.

Farm resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of California direct market farmers

CONTEXT

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant shocks to U.S. food systems at multiple scales. While disturbances to long-distance supply chains received substantial attention in national media, local supply chains experienced mixed impacts. As broad closures of schools, restaurants, and other businesses sourcing from local farmers removed key marketing channels for many direct market farmers, consumer interest in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), farmers markets, and on-farm and online direct farm sales increased.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we examine the resilience and vulnerability of farmers during the March 2020 through December 2020 period of the COVID-19 pandemic. We focus on California farmers and ranchers engaged in direct market sales.

METHODS

Through a widely disseminated survey, we collected responses from 364 farmers and used these data to answer the following questions about direct market farmers in California: 1) What were direct market farmers' experiences of the pandemic from March 2020 through December 2020? 2) Which factors (e.g., relationships, institutions, market channels) did farmers report enhanced their resilience during the pandemic? 3) Which individual and operational factors were significantly associated with resilience during the pandemic? And finally, 4) how do the farmer-reported factors compare to the statistically significant factors associated with resilience? We created three dependent variables-ability to respond to the pandemic, concern about pandemic impacts, and change in profitability-to operationalize several aspects of resilience and examine their association with individual and operational characteristics through a series of ordered logistic regression models.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Across both the quantitative models and the farmer reported factors, we found that farmers who increased their use of online sales and marketing during the first year of the pandemic, had larger-scale farms, and had more on-farm crop and livestock diversity were more resilient to the shocks of the pandemic. We also found that greater use of non-direct-to-consumer market channels was associated with less resilience. The characteristics of the farming operations played a relatively larger role in predicting resilience compared to the individual characteristics of the farmers surveyed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study gives a detailed picture of how California direct market farmers fared during the pandemic and the characteristics associated with greater resilience. As short and long-term disruptions become increasingly common in agriculture, policies and programs can leverage support to direct market farmers, particularly direct-to-consumer farmers, as a strategy to strengthen farmer resilience.

Farm size affects the use of agroecological practices on organic farms in the United States

Organic agriculture outperforms conventional agriculture across several sustainability metrics due, in part, to more widespread use of agroecological practices. However, increased entry of large-scale farms into the organic sector has prompted concerns about 'conventionalization' through input substitution, agroecosystem simplification and other changes. We examined this shift in organic agriculture by estimating the use of agroecological practices across farm size and comparing indicators of conventionalization. Results from our national survey of 542 organic fruit and vegetable farmers show that fewer agroecological practices were used on large farms, which also exhibited the greatest degree of conventionalization. Intercropping, insectary plantings and border plantings were at least 1.4 times more likely to be used on small (0.4-39 cropland ha) compared with large (≥405 cropland ha) farms, whereas reduced tillage was less likely and riparian buffers were more likely on small compared with medium (40-404 cropland ha) farms. Because decisions about management practices can drive environmental sustainability outcomes, policy should support small and medium farms that already use agroecological practices while encouraging increased use of agroecological practices on larger farms.