Skip to main content
ARS Home » Office of Communications » UTM » Thinking Big: How A Nationwide Approach Strengthens Agricultural Research

Under the Microscope logo

Thinking Big: How A Nationwide Approach Strengthens Agricultural Research

David Hoover  

David Hoover is a research ecologist at the Rangeland Resources & Systems Research Unit in Fort Collins, CO. His research is focused on how land management and climatic variability influence the ecohydrology of semi-arid rangelands. He is a member of the Leadership Team, and recently served as Vice Chair of the LTAR network.

Welcome to Under the Microscope, Dr. Hoover.

UM: What is LTAR, and why was it established?

DH: Scientists recognized that there was a need to better understand how agroecosystems adapt and respond to management across a wide range of environmental conditions; working at our own research stations was insufficient to address such complex, systems-level agricultural problems. We needed clearer ways to coordinate and compare our results as a network, rather than as individuals. 

LTAR was formed in 2012 to conduct long-term research to develop and assess innovative tools and practices for resilient and sustainable agriculture. The network consists of hundreds of scientists, students, and technicians across 19 sites representing a diverse range of agroecosystems in the continental United States. It has three strategic goals:

1. Improve the scientific understanding of agroecosystem function;

2. Develop and test new tools, technologies, and practices that promote agricultural sustainability and resilience; and

3. Enhance equitable access to scientific information, leading to the adoption of locally tailored tools and practices.

UM: What kinds of activities or measurements are you trying to compare across sites?

DH: At the site level, each location is responsible for collecting core production, environmental, and socio-economic data, such as aboveground biomass, greenhouse gas emissions, and infrastructure costs. We do that using standardized protocols to ensure the data can be compared directly across sites. Sites are also responsible for conducting a “common experiment,” which compares the agricultural tools or practices of currently prevalent approaches with alternative management strategies that may better attain producer goals while also improving agroecosystem sustainability. The common experiments are co-produced with stakeholders at many sites to ensure the science is relevant to local users’ needs.

The LTAR network also includes 21 cross-site working groups, which focus on specific research topics like erosion and water quality, as well as network-level support groups. The working groups provide expertise on specific topics to coordinate data collection across sites, and to develop innovative tools and research.

UM: What role does social science play in LTAR? Is that changing or evolving?

DH: Historically, agricultural research within ARS has been focused on biophysical processes, such as grain yield and runoff quality, with little emphasis on social sciences, and thus often failed to capture the human dimensions of farming and ranching. Today, we are moving toward a transdisciplinary approach that looks at agricultural sustainability from production, environmental, as well as societal perspectives.

This new frameworkis an effort to better capture the relationships between land stewardship and the well-being of producers and rural communities. We have a Human Dimensions working group that is leading the effort to implement this framework and enhance social science in the LTAR network.

Sheri Spiegal leading a tour.Sheri Spiegal, a research rangeland management specialist, speaks at a tour of the USDA Jornada Experimental Range, a part of the LTAR network. (Photo by Peter Kleinman)

UM: What is the role of partnerships with outside groups, and how does that affect the work that goes on within LTAR?

DH: Engagement with local stakeholders and external partner organizations is at the core of the LTAR approach. Our network strongly believes that research that directly involves stakeholders and partners in all aspects of the process will result in more useful and usable tools and practices. One example at the site level is the Collaborative Adaptive Rangeland Management experiment, which is the common experiment at the Central Plains Experimental Range in eastern Colorado. This study was initiated in 2012 with the objective of combining adaptive management with multi-stakeholder collaboration from ranchers, conservation groups, and government agencies, as described by Wilmer et al (2018).

In addition to local stakeholder engagement, LTAR partners with external organizations at the regional, national, and international levels to conduct research beyond the scale of the individual farm or ranch.

UM: What kinds of questions do integrated data let you tackle that might have been harder to look at before?

DH: LTAR collects a rich tapestry of data, ranging from ground-based sensors to plant and soil samples, to satellite imagery, as well as agricultural management practices (LTAR data overview). Sites and working groups are supported by data managers who organize and share well-documented data. These data are integrated to be more easily used in predictive models, applied to climate assessments, and used to ask cross-site questions, such as: How do water budgets vary across different agroecosystems? and, What is the best instrumentation for monitoring agroecosystem productivity and phenology at a national scale?

UM: Are there specific outcomes that highlight the benefits of a network approach to science?

DH: A network of transdisciplinary researchers across diverse agroecosystems can address research questions that cannot be examined by any one institution alone. A network approach, like LTAR, can leverage shared resources, scientific expertise, and long research histories to develop new knowledge and innovations. Recent examples include articles on the uncertainty of phosphorous budgets across the LTAR network, integrating crop and animal production in manuresheds, unraveling the effects of management and climate on cropland carbon budgets, a description of the LTAR experimental watershed network, examining the impact of livestock management on plant diversity, and assessing the representativeness and constituency of the LTAR network.

UM: What challenges does LTAR face, and how are you addressing them?

DH: To develop our recent Strategic Plan, we conducted surveys and feedback sessions involving network scientists and key stakeholders to identify our strengths and challenges. The challenges that were identified were largely related to network growth, data management, and stakeholder engagement and communication. To address these challenges, we are:

1. Developing strategies to balance network growth with the needs of the 18 sites currently in the network.

2. Creating data platforms and workflows to enhance data sharing for cross-site analyses and synthesis.

3. Enhancing stakeholder engagement by improving our communication efforts and increasing external partners’ involvement in the research process.

UM: How would you describe LTAR’s current path, and what steps lie ahead?

DH: The first decade of the LTAR network was focused on developing the network structure, establishing site-level experiments, standardizing protocols, and coordinating research activities. These efforts have resulted in thousands of peer-reviewed manuscripts, as seen on our LTAR Publications Dashboard. While many of the early publications were site-based, we are seeing a greater proportion of cross-site papers emerging as our data sets and working groups grow. We are now also able to mobilize network resources to address problems that stakeholders communicate to us, such as measuring the effects alternative agricultural practices on greenhouse gas emissions. Increased efforts to standardize data collection and harmonization as well as engaging with external partners will continue this trend of regionally, nationally, and internationally relevant research.

UM: What sets LTAR apart from other research initiatives that have tried to compare data across locations?

DH: There are two research networks, the Long-Term Ecological Research network (LTER) and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), that are often compared with LTAR. However, LTAR is unique in two ways: an exclusive focus on agroecosystems and agricultural practices, which requires a deep understanding of management impacts; and a strong commitment to engaging producers, land managers, conservation groups, agencies, and other external partners in the research process. Overall, these three research networks have a great deal of complementarity and multi-network research opportunities. 

UM: What is exciting for scientists about working in the LTAR network?

DH: Speaking from my own personal experience, LTAR has been a wonderful opportunity to connect with researchers from a wide range of scientific disciplines, agricultural systems, and environments. This has really broadened the scope of my research, allowing me to explore agroecosystems across a wider range of scales, conditions, and measurements than I could have working as an independent scientist. LTAR is also a community of hard-working, passionate people, whom I’ve been truly fortunate to collaborate with. I think many others in the network would echo this perspective. 

More information about LTAR can be found in the recently released LTAR Strategic Plan.