@article{respess_austin_gatiboni_osmond_2022, title={Assessing the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework toolbox in a Southern Piedmont landscape of the United States}, volume={77}, ISSN={["1941-3300"]}, DOI={10.2489/jswc.2022.00138}, abstractNote={The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) is a geospatial decision support tool that was developed and is used in many areas of the Midwest of the United States to help with the prioritization and placement of conservation practices within agricultural watersheds. We evaluated the utility and extensibility of ACPF in two US Geological Survey 12-digit scale hydrologic units in the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina. The Southern Piedmont consists of less row crop agriculture and more pasture systems than the Midwest and has generally lower pollutant loads. Also, agricultural fields are comparatively smaller, irregularly shaped, and more sparsely distributed. For this study, local conservation experts were interviewed about conservation practices and their appropriate locations in the landscape. Interviewees demonstrated an extensive working knowledge of the land and producers on over 90% of the farmland. Many of the conservation practices identified by the local experts were “soil health” practices, such as cover crops or nutrient management, and are assumed in use before running ACPF. Results revealed that many of the conservation practices output by ACPF were not identified by the local experts in the Southern Piedmont watersheds due to their limited use in pasture conservation, conservation priorities, and landscape characteristics. Row crop agriculture was sparsely distributed in each study watershed and comprised less than 2% of the total catchment area. Contour buffer strips and grassed waterways were the conservation practices most identified by ACPF and were sited in 75% of cropped fields. A greater number of crop-related conservation practices (48 versus 15) were identified by ACPF than by local experts; however 80% of the conservation practices identified by the experts were outside the scope of ACPF and were mainly nutrient management or soil health practices. To evaluate ACPF for broader utility in the Southern Piedmont, alternative interpretations for existing outputs were considered: (1) ACPF “proxies” were identified to compare locally accepted practices with ACPF outputs that perform a similar function (e.g., strip cropping rather than contour buffer strips) and, (2) placing locally used conservation practices (e.g., exclusion fencing) based on existing ACPF data layers (hydrologically enforced flow paths). Alternative uses and interpretations surrounding ACPF outputs and data layers may provide opportunities for conservation planning outside the scope and intended use of ACPF in the Southern Piedmont.}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION}, author={Respess, Z. M. and Austin, R. and Gatiboni, L. and Osmond, D.}, year={2022}, pages={441–449} }
 @article{respess_duncan_2021, title={Factors affecting the placement of agricultural best management practices in the agricultural conservation planning framework (ACPF) toolbox in the mid-Atlantic region}, ISSN={["1537-2537"]}, DOI={10.1002/jeq2.20279}, abstractNote={AbstractThere has been a recent push to conduct spatially explicit landscape planning at finer hydrologic unit scales to mitigate diffuse pollution. The Agricultural Conservation and Planning Framework (ACPF) helps identify potential locations for agricultural conservation practices by using high‐resolution soils and elevation data. This spatially explicit approach attempts to identify runoff and nutrient pathways, but output may be influenced by user‐specified parameters and the properties of the digital elevation model (DEM) being used. Here we assess differences in the density and location of conservation practices sited by the ACPF toolbox across three DEM resolutions in three agricultural catchments, each in distinct physiographies (Ridge and Valley, Piedmont, Coastal Plain) of the United States mid‐Atlantic region. Output frequency did not vary much for contour buffer strips or water and sediment control basins (WASCOBs) across DEM resolution, particularly compared with landscape type. The DEM resolution was crucial for the density of grassed waterways but of little consequence for contour buffer strips. Placement density of WASCOBs and contour buffer strips varied by region. Grassed waterways are sited based on either discrete values or statistical distributions of stream power index (SPI). A higher density of grassed waterways was placed in lower relief landscapes when a single standard deviation threshold was applied. Using discrete SPI values for the grassed waterway tool generated more consistent output across watersheds than output based on statistical distributions. These and other reported findings can help guide user decisions in future applications of the ACPF toolbox, particularly across different areas of study.}, journal={JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY}, author={Respess, Zachary M. and Duncan, Jonathan M.}, year={2021}, month={Aug} }
 @article{duncan_respess_ryan_austin_royer_osmond_kleinman_2021, title={The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Opportunities and challenges in the eastern United States}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2471-9625"]}, DOI={10.1002/ael2.20054}, abstractNote={AbstractThe Agriculture Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) applies high‐spatial resolution soils and topographic data, now available for many areas of the United States, to precisely locate opportunities for the placement of conservation practices in agricultural watersheds. Application of the ACPF, developed in midwestern landscapes, to watersheds in the eastern United States represents both opportunity and challenge to conservation planning. Based on experience in applying ACPF to eight watersheds in the eastern United States, from Vermont to North Carolina, we assess the toolbox's application in the eastern United States through the lens of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis framework. We see a great future for the ACPF, but its adoption and utility require interaction with scientists and conservation planners familiar with the region to avoid misapplication and ensure appropriate adaptation and interpretation.}, number={3}, journal={AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL LETTERS}, author={Duncan, Jonathan M. and Respess, Zachary and Ryan, William and Austin, Robert and Royer, Matthew and Osmond, Deanna and Kleinman, Peter}, year={2021} }