Friday, April 14, 2017

Call to Action: Use Habitat to Reduce E. Coli on Leafy Greens

I will be giving a short talk at the DC March for Science about Daniel Karp's research on wildlife habitat and food safety, and I would like to encourage people to take action on it. Essentially he found no evidence that clearing habitat near leafy greens reduces E. coli contamination. In fact, his research provides some preliminary evidence that habitat removal could actually increase food safety risk. However, it is not clear that companies buying greens have gotten the message, and some of them are likely still requiring or encouraging farmers to destroy habitat.

When you buy greens, please reach out to the company producing / packaging the greens, and ask them to discourage farmers from clearing habitat (sample text you can use in an email is below). You can also talk to the staff at the customer service desk of the grocery to ask them about their sourcing criteria, and pass on the information about this research.

Sample text:
"I've recently become aware that many buyers of leafy greens have been requiring or encouraging farmers to clear natural habitat near to their fields, out of concern for possible contamination by wildlife. However, now that scientific research has found no evidence that clearing habitat near leafy greens reduces E. coli contamination (and provides some preliminary evidence that habitat removal could actually increase food safety risk), I'm hoping that you will disincentive your growers from clearing habitat. Please let me know how you are engaging on this issue. You can read a blog summarizing the findings here:
and the full references are:
Karp DS, Gennet S, Kilonzo C, Partyka M, Chaumont N, Atwill ER, et al. Comanaging fresh produce for nature conservation and food safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; doi:10.1073/pnas.1508435112

Karp DS, Moses R, Gennet S, Jones MS, Joseph S, M’Gonigle LK, et al. Agricultural practices for food safety threaten pest control services for fresh produce. Manning P, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2016;53: 1402–1412. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12707"

Saturday, April 1, 2017

April Journal Article Summary

This review is extra-large since I spent an unusual amount of time on planes reading these articles and awkwardly typing up notes with my arms in the T-rex position while wedged between other passengers. Feeling like you don't want to spend time reading all this science when it's so lovely outside? I've included blog links for three of the papers below so that you can read a bit more without having to wade through the full text.

Do you like being surprised, and finding out that things that "everybody knows" aren't necessarily true? If so, check out the abstracts for each of the 28 chapters in an upcoming book called Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma (I have them in the same Box folder as the articles) which should be out this fall. Six of the chapters feature TNC authors (including myself), not counting the many ex-TNC staff and current TNC partners. The theme for the whole book is stories of ideas widely accepted as true being discovered to be flawed, and how we respond to this challenging new information. Let me know if you'd like a copy of my chapter.

There has been some debate about the upcoming March for Science, and whether scientists engaging in advocacy (whether generally in support of science and data, or specifically advocating for policies) could harm our credibility and increase polarization. Here is one data point from Kotcher et al finding that advocacy does NOT harm that credibility. They asked about 1,200 people to read a biography of a fictional scientist, then read one of six statements which had been tailored along a continuum of just presenting facts to a strong policy recommendation, then to rate his credibility (and several other variables). The degree of advocacy did not impact how trusted the scientist was (except when he made a recommendation to build more nuclear power plants), implying that advocacy scientists does not necessarily mean they will not be seen as credible. So if you are so inclined, march for science bolstered by data that you're unlikely to make things worse (as some have worried about). There is a blog on this paper here:

A new paper by TNC's Marissa Ahlering and Joe Fargione looks at the impact of preserving vs. converting rangelands (grasslands primarily used for grazing cattle, and relatively unmanaged compared to pasture which can be irrigated & fertilized). They found that at a site level in addition to obvious habitat benefits of rangelands that there are also carbon benefits; even accounting for the emissions from the cattle being grazed the rangelands still on net offer GHG benefits compared to converting the rangelands to crop. This is a great way to bolster the case for protecting rangelands that are providing good habitat. Note that it is NOT saying that all beef production is a GHG sink. Clearing forests for pasture would still entail heavy GHG emissions, and they also didn't look at the full life cycle of the cattle (in other words, the rangelands were a carbon sink, but after they finish grazing the cattle go to feedlots where there are additional emissions from enteric methane / manure / feed production). So the total GHG impact of beef vs. other crops is still complicated, but this is an important contribution to make a stronger case for protecting existing rangelands. Check out Marissa’s blog on the paper if you don't want to read the whole thing:

There are several ways in which climate change may reinforce itself via positive feedback (e.g., melting ice reducing how much sunlight is reflected, leading to more warming), and Bradford et al 2016 argue that accelerated loss of soil carbon resulting from global warming is only supported by limited evidence. They point out that there are few observations of soil C stocks decreasing due to warming and the rapid shift in how soil science characterizes soil C stability and turnover. They lay out several ideas for how future research can increase our ability to understand and model soil C changes due to climate change.

Soti et al 2016 looks at how different cover crops affect mycorrhizae (symbiotic soil fungi which crops like peppers and corn depend on) and soil quality on organic farms in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. They found cover crops boosted mycorrhizal spores, soil organic matter, and several nutrients. Different cover crops had different effects, with no clear winner or loser across all metrics. If applying this look carefully at Table 2 as the text doesn't always make clear which cover crops performed better than the control plot.

Teasdale et al 2007 compared soil quality and crop yield of organic farming and 3 variations of no-till (which used herbicide and conventional fertilizer). Essentially they found that the organic system (and even the "living mulch" no-till system with reduced herbicide and fertilizer use) suffered yield losses from weeds that got worse over time, even though soil carbon and N were significantly higher in the organic system. Interestingly, the fields that had the highest yields used conventional no-till practices on soils with a 9-year history of either organic or "living mulch" production; these fields had accrued soil benefits but were effectively controlling weeds with herbicide that reduced competition. I love that this study both shows the yield benefits of soil health, but also shows that those benefits can be counteracted by other factors (insufficient weed control).

Navarrete et al 2016 is complicated but potentially important: they look at how conversion in the Colombian Amazon impacts soil carbon, and found that it can either decrease or increase depending on management (although the paper isn't well controlled, there are several confounding variables and they make stocking density binary rather than continuous). Lots of caveats here to the potential increase (forest biomass is still lost), so this is more about how we can perhaps limit the GHG impact of pasture (not saying conversion to pasture can be good for GHGs). Essentially they found pastures averaging ~3 head per ha lost 20% of soil C in 20 years, while pastures with ~0.1 head/ha gained 40%. This is worth reading for people working in the region, as the mechanisms driving the different soil outcomes look to me like they could be modified to get higher intensity grazing with significantly less soil C losses. Even if not, on net the higher intensity grazing would still represent a net GHG benefit if it leads to less conversion.

Kopittke et al 2016 is a rough global summary of how soil C (plus N,P, & S) change (per unit of soil mass) over the long term with conversion of natural land cover (e.g. forests, grasslands, etc.) to either cropland or pasture. The findings aren't surprising (there's more loss when converting to crop than to pasture) but it's still useful to have the comparison with the caveat that the median sampling depth was only 20 cm (mean 26 cm). This limits the utility of their estimates in how changing cropping (conventional vs no-till vs organic amendment) impacted soil C.

Hijbeek et al 2016 is a metaanalysis showing that organic inputs (e.g. straw, manue) in most cases does not boost crop yield significantly if nutrients are not a limiting factor. Some exceptions: roots / tubers, wet climates, sandy soils, and potentially very dry climates show yield benefits from organic inputs. They also note how high the variance is, concluding that organic inputs or SOM alone are not sufficient to predict yields.

Finally, this is more of an editorial than a journal article, but this piece by Jess Davies in Nature calls for businesses to engage more around soils (largely absent from corporate sustainability goals and reporting), in partnership with scientists. There are lots of puns and zinger quotes about dirt too:

Levis et al 2017 presents evidence that forests have been managed by native people in the Amazon for a very long time. Specifically, domesticated tree species are quite a bit more common near to archaeological sites and rivers (argued to be a good proxy for the location of pre-Colombian settlements) in most of the Amazon. It thus challenges the notion of the Amazon as a "virgin" forest that hasn't been impacted by humans until recently. There's a blog about this here if you want to know more but don't want to read the paper:

Ceccato 2005 is about using remote sensing to detect desert locust outbreaks early enough to prevent them from growing into a full scale plague. However, the more broadly applicable and interesting aspect of this paper is the fact that NDVI (a commonly used index of "greenness" often used as a proxy for vegetation) can be the same for bare ground and sparse vegetation (see Figure 2). In this paper they added a shortwave infrared band, but in other papers the author has transformed the RGB color index into HSV, as soils and sparse vegetation typically have a different hue (brown-red-black vs green).

Olsen et al 2015 is a paper using remote sensing (MODIS) to estimate grassland biomass under three different grazing treatments (ungrazed, controlled / rotational, and uncontrolled / continuous). They found that metrics based on NDVI correlated fairly well with end of season standing biomass overall, BUT the best metric was still unable to distinguish real biomass differences between treatments. The biomass of the ungrazed plots was almost double that of the grazed ones, but the NDVI only varied by a few %. This shows the current limits of using remote sensing to detect relati

Mango et al 2017 is an analysis of how conservation ag (reduced tillage, crop rotations, and cover crops) impacted food security (measured via food consumption score, which reflects both quantity and quality) of 1600 smallholder farmers in southern Africa. They found that while it slightly improved food security in Mozambique (with a marginally statistically significant effect of p=0.09), it had no significant effect in Malawi or Zimbabwe. The authors best guess is that in Mozambique conservation ag is often promoted along with other BMPs like improved seeds and timely weeding (which is especially critical when using conservation ag). Interestingly, in both Malawi and Mozambique both groups of farmers (using conservation ag or not) were in the "acceptable" range of food consumption. This paper shows the challenge in assuming that conservation ag will necessarily lead to positive human outcomes without careful design.

Horowitz et al 2016 is an analysis of reactive nitrogen (any N other than N2) flows in Central California, using multiple metrics (e.g. mass flows, damages, and abatement costs) to investigate how to reduce damages at the lowest costs. Surprisingly, while agriculture is the dominant source of nitrogen, the authors find that reducing NOx from cars and trucks would be the most cost-effective solution. This is a result of the human health impacts of poor air quality having much higher dollar values associated with them, as well as it being relatively easier to abate those emissions. The thing I find most interesting in this paper is thinking about how changing your metric (e.g. damages, abatement costs, ROIs, etc) can shift your focus; using this multiple metrics approach you could consider the multiple axes to determine which solutions are preferable.

You're probably aware that a key part of the pitch for water funds is how changing land use affects water quality. McDonald et al 2016 is a nice TNC-led analysis quantitatively showing how much water quality in urban watersheds has been degraded by human activity (e.g., conversion of natural areas to urban and agricultural), and how that has impacted the costs of treating water for human consumption (they found 29% of large cities have had water treatment costs significantly increased [~50%] by watershed degradation).

DiMuro et al 2014 is a paper by Dow staff comparing a "gray vs green" infrastructure decision for water treatment, specifically looking at a wetland Dow constructed in 1995 (instead of building a conventional reactor). The authors conclude that over the life of the project the wetland will save ~$125 million in 2012 dollars (and accounting for interest, tax, insurance, depreciation, and other factors they put the net present value at $282 million), making it a "big win" for both Dow and the environment (as there were several co-benefits). They conclude with some of the trade-offs between green vs gray solutions like this, and how companies can approach these decisions.

Curtis and Slocum 2016 lays out a framework for improving the design of green certification of resorts using behavioral economics, given that current certification efforts have not been successful in achieving substantial reductions in food waste. I found the last two pages particularly useful, where the author make suggestions on how companies can influence their employees and customers in support of their sustainability goals.


p.s. as a reminder, you can search all of the science articles written by TNC staff (that we know of) here  

Ahlering M, Fargione J, Parton W. Potential carbon dioxide emission reductions from avoided grassland conversion in the northern Great Plains. Ecosphere. 2016;7: e01625. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1625

Bradford MA, Wieder WR, Bonan GB, Fierer, N. Raymond PA, Crowther TW. Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. Nature Publishing Group; 2016;6: 751–758. doi:10.1038/nclimate3071

Ceccato P. Operational Early Warning System Using Spot- Vegetation and Terra-Modis To Predict Desert Locust Outbreaks. Proc 2nd Int Veg User Conf. 2005; 33–41. 

Curtis KR, Slocu SL. The Role of Sustainability Certification Programs in Reducing Food Waste in Tourism. In: Journal of Developments in Sustainable Agriculture [Internet]. 2016 pp. 1–7. Available:

Davies J. The business case for soil. Nature. 2017;543: 309–311. Available:

Dimuro JL, Guertin FM, Helling RK, Perkins JL, Romer S. A financial and environmental analysis of constructed wetlands for industrial wastewater treatment. J Ind Ecol. 2014;18: 631–640. doi:10.1111/jiec.12129

Hijbeek R, van Ittersum MK, ten Berge HFM, Gort G, Spiegel H, Whitmore AP. Do organic inputs matter – a meta-analysis of additional yield effects for arable crops in Europe. Plant Soil. Plant and Soil; 2016; doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3031-x

Horowitz AI, Moomaw WR, Liptzin D, Gramig BM, Reeling C. A multiple metrics approach to prioritizing strategies for measuring and managing reactive nitrogen in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Environ Res Lett. IOP Publishing; 11: 1–10. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064011

Kopittke PM, Dalal RC, Finn D, Menzies NW. Global changes in soil stocks of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur as influenced by long-term agricultural production. Glob Chang Biol. 2016; doi:10.1111/gcb.13513

Kotcher JE, Myers TA, Vraga EK, Stenhouse N, Maibach EW. Does Engagement in Advocacy Hurt the Credibility of Scientists? Results from a Randomized National Survey Experiment. Environ Commun. Taylor & Francis; 2017;0: 1–15. doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736

Levis C, Costa FRC, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, Clement CR, Junqueira AB, et al. Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition. Science (80- ). 2017;355: 925–931. doi:10.1126/science.aal0157

Mango N, Siziba S, Makate C. The impact of adoption of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers’ food security in semi-arid zones of southern Africa. Agric Food Secur. BioMed Central; 2017;6: 32. doi:10.1186/s40066-017-0109-5

McDonald RI, Weber KF, Padowski J, Boucher T, Shemie D. Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016; 201605354. doi:10.1073/pnas.1605354113

Navarrete D, Sitch S, Aragão LEOC, Pedroni L. Conversion from forests to pastures in the Colombian Amazon leads to differences in dead wood dynamics depending on land management practices. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22: 3503–3517. doi:10.1111/gcb.13266

Olsen JL, Miehe S, Ceccato P, Fensholt R. Does EO NDVI seasonal metrics capture variations in species composition and biomass due to grazing in semi-arid grassland savannas? Biogeosciences. 2015;12: 4407–4419. doi:10.5194/bg-12-4407-2015

Soti PG, Rugg S, Racelis A. Potential of Cover Crops in Promoting Mycorrhizal Diversity and Soil Quality in Organic Farms. J Agric Sci. 2016;8: 42. doi:10.5539/jas.v8n8p42

Teasdale JR, Coffman CB, Mangum RW. Potential long-term benefits of no-tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agron J. 2007;99: 1297–1305. doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0362

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Monthly Journal Article Summaries (coming soon)

For the last several years, I've sent monthly summaries of the journal articles I've read that I found useful enough to be worth passing on to a handful of colleagues. I've been reluctant to make those public to avoid having to worry about whether I'm being diplomatic / fair enough in characterizing them, but I've decided to just go for it. Let me know if you have any thoughts or reactions in the comments.

I usually send these out around the first of each month, but here's one from last year that includes one of my favorite papers of 2016:

Social Science:
If you ever play a role in hiring new staff, please read this article (if not the paper it's based on, Kang et al 2016), and even if you never hire people, I'd still encourage you to read it:
I guarantee you will find it fascinating, and hopefully useful as well (the full paper is also a page-turner; well written, a great experimental design, and full of surprises to me as a white male). Essentially the authors found that statements by employers encouraging diversity in applicants to a job harms minorities. The reason is that some minorities "whiten" their resume to make it less apparant that they are a minority, which in turn increases their chances of proceeding to an interview (e.g. they found a fictious black candidate was 2.5 times as likely to be invited to proceed to an actual interview if they whitened both their name and experience than if they applied with an unwhitened resume). Statements encouraging diversity led applicants to not whiten their resumes, but by encouraging them not to hide their identity, less minorities get hired. It's kind of a complex 3-part study but it's really clear if you put in the time to read it. The lead author helpfully sent me several suggestions of what we can do to improve in hiring, from blind initial screenings (removing names to reduce cues about gender and ethnicity), to education on unconscious bias, and many more. I've put these below as a p.s.

Kowalski and Jenkins 2015 is a nice paper emphasizing that having a clearly defined leadership structure is more important to make collaborative groups function well than having good connections between all of the members. In other words, having someone to coordinate and make it clear what everyone's role is was found to be more important than a more egalitarian (but unclear) setup. However, this paper is based on a very small sample so I wouldn't consider it definitive.

Kniss et al 2016 is a nice overview of some of the trade-offs between organic and conventional agriculture. They find a consistent 20% yield gap for organic, but argue since that higher yields only lead to less farmland area (and presumably more habitat) in certain circumstances, this may be worthwhile given the other benefits. You can read a summary of the paper here:

Baur et al 2016 is the latest from TNC California and their partners about specialty crop farmers (fruits, vegetables, and nuts) that are being pushed to clear habitat around their farms (due to concerns about E Coli which have been proved to be unfounded). In addition to summarizing the earlier findings from this research, they conducted a detailed survey showing how much variation there is in implementing food safety practices, as well as perceptions of farmers about those practices. Pressure from auditors and food buyers may be responsible; they call for clearer guidelines that allow for some flexibility in improving food safety.

Ryals et al 2016 found that a single application of compost (which breaks down more slowly than inorganic fertilizer) to rangelands boosted grassland productivity (more food for cattle), grass N content (more nutritious grass), and didn't impact invasive species. However, one of their two sites showed a decline in native species and the other showed mixed results on natives. Sometimes fertilization is proposed as a way to increase carbon sequestration, although it has to be done carefully to avoid nitrous oxide emissions from the fertilizer and from manure which can counteract the gains in C (and this paper doesn't account for that).

Baidoo et al 2016 is not very well written or clear, but it does show that botanical insecticides (garlic and hot pepper) are viable forms of pest control for cabbage. Essentially while they did not kill as many pests as a synthetic insecticide, they also were much lower cost, didn't kill as many natural enemies of the pests, and were less persistent in the environment. The authors actually found a better benefit:cost ratio for the botanical controls than the synthetic one, even without price premiums for organic pest control.


p.s. Here are the suggestions from Dr. Kang about how to improve diversity when hiring:
"Initial blind screening (replacing names from resumes and letters with random IDs) is an excellent way to start. Another great step is to start educating people about unconscious bias. Making people aware of these biases and how they might affect the hiring process is a critical step.

Other things you can try are diversifying the search committee, emphasizing the goal of a fair process (people sometimes get defensive about diversity because they think that it antithetical to a search for excellence - reassure people that excellent people will still rise to the top in a fair search), spend sufficient time and attention evaluating everyone on the short list/those that come in for an interview (we are more likely to fall back on stereotypes and prejudices when we are under time pressure), base decisions on concrete information in the application package (this means that discussions of fit have to be grounded in the application not based on peripheral concerns), create very clear criteria for evaluation and don't discuss anything outside of this list, and make sure any criteria/question applied to one candidate is applied to every candidate."


Kang SK, DeCelles KA, Tilcsik A, Jun S. Whitened resumes: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Adm Sci Q. 2016; doi:10.1177/0001839216639577

Kowalski AA, Jenkins LD. The role of bridging organizations in environmental management : examining social networks in working groups. Ecol Soc. 2015;20: 16. doi:10.5751/ES-07541-200216

Kniss AR, Savage SD, Jabbour R. Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States. 2016; 1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161673

Baur P, Driscoll L, Gennet S, Karp DS. Inconsistent food safety pressures complicate environmental conservation for California produce growers. Calif Agric. 2016;70: 142–151. Available:

Ryals R, Eviner VT, Suding KN, Silver WL. Grassland compost amendments increase plant production without changing plant communities production without changing plant communities. Ecosphere. 2016;7. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1270

Baidoo PK, Mochiah MB. Comparing the Effectiveness of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) and Hot Pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) in the Management of the Major Pests of Cabbage Brassica oleracea (L.). Sustain Agric Res. 2016;5: 83. doi:10.5539/sar.v5n2p83

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

reThink Soil: A Roadmap to U.S. Soil Health

We just released a new report on the potential benefits of adoption soil health practices in the U.S., and the conclusions are pretty exciting! You can read a brief overview, the executive summary, and the full paper at Much of the analysis was done by consultants we worked with, but I provided lots of scientific guidance and review throughout the process.

The web page has a good summary of some of the key points, but to put it even more succinctly, we argue that the adoption of three soil health practices (no-till, cover crops, and crop rotations) on U.S. row crops could have massive benefits both to society (e.g. improved water quality, reduced GHGs) and to the farmers implementing them (reduced soil erosion, improved soil quality and resilience).

For instance, if half of the farmland used to grow corn, soy, and wheat were to adopt all three practices, it could generate $7.4 billion in total benefits, and if all the farmland for those three crops adopted them it could be $19.6 billion (note that it's not double because some farms already use some of these practices). If you take the more optimistic upper range of our estimates, total societal benefit for 100% adoption of all three practices could be $49.8 billion. A lot of the science is uncertain, so these estimates are rough but we drew on the best available data to come up with them, and we are confident that the magnitude of the opportunity is valid even if the exact numbers are off.

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

U.S. Beef Supply Chain - Impacts and Opportunities

Surprisingly, there are very few assessments of the overall environmental impact of beef across the supply chain (looking at all phases of their life). The only ones we've found have a clear bias either favoring industrial systems or grass-finished systems. So, The Nature Conservancy decided to fill that gap with a rapid assessment.
Longhorn in Southwest Missouri from Flickr user Jeff Weese. Used under Creative Commons license (
We looked at major impacts and opportunities to improve for each of the different production phases: ranch and farm grazing (cow-calf ranches, stockers, backgrounders, etc., when they're roaming about and grazing), feed production (growing hay / silage and row crops to be fed to cattle), feedlots (operation of the feedlot where they're fattened not including growing the feed), and harvest facilities (slaughterhouses).

You can read a bit about the report and our major findings here:

The report can be directly downloaded here:

The most interesting / surprising finding to me was that the grazing phase actually had the biggest impact. The key is that while it's fairly low impact per acre, it's by far both the largest footprint and where cattle spend the most time. So put together we actually see more greenhouse gas emissions, water quality impacts, and wildlife habitat impacts from that grazing phase.

A couple of key notes: Walmart provided funding for this report but had no editorial control or input into the content of the paper. Also, this was a rapid assessment (it took place over 6 months in between other work) by a small team of four scientists, so we do not have all the answers. Some critical issues we didn't have time to assess include impacts of dairy cattle, a comparison of the impact of beef to other protein sources (vegetable and animal), animal welfare and social issues, and the return on investment of different sustainability options (e.g. what would provide the most benefit per dollar spent). That's all important but was too much for us to tackle.

Finally, I occasionally have people ask me "Why should I trust you (as a vegan, or as an environmentalist) to give me accurate information about livestock and agriculture?" My answer is usually the same, which is that I encourage people not to simply trust me: instead look at the work, check my assumptions / calculations / sources, and come to your own decision about whether or not the analysis has merit. My job is to be as honest, accurate, and transparent as possible to make that process easy. Along those lines, I'm happy to take questions / critiques here.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Sneak preview of (hopefully) upcoming publications

From August 2016 through the end of this year, I hope to have submitted 10 peer-reviewed articles / chapters for publication! In the meantime I'm hard at work writing as much as I can.
Science writing outside at briar patch b&b

They are as follows (let me know if you want any abstracts):
1. A remote sensing paper where we detected agricultural ditches and ridge-tillage, and show how important those practices are for erosion control in our study area in Kenya (submitted, second author).
2. A book chapter for a Oxford University Press book about scientific findings that go against expectations. It's about the analysis I did for another book chapter (Cambridge University Press, not published yet) which I reported on here: (Reviewed / Accepted, sole author)

3. A paper outlining how we tied traditional detailed household surveys to spatial data by having farmers outline their actual plots on tablets with high resolution imagery (should be submitted in a few weeks, second author)

4. A paper that was part of a water fund project in Brazil; a water treatment company is going to pay for conservation to reduce the costs of treating the water. So the paper asks how much of a difference it makes if we use high resolution data (expensive and time consuming) vs low resolution (free and faster) on our water quality estimates (hopefully submitted in a month or two, first author)

5.-8. There is a series of four papers on knowledge diffusion (spread and uptake of new ideas); I'm leading one and I believe I'll be on the other three as an author since we've been working together on the research as a team for 2 years. The one I'm leading uses a rich array of data to examine both internal and external diffusion at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) from a few different angles, one uses an experiment to show how "boundary spanners" (people with social networks that connect to a variety of other groups) play a critical role in spreading knowledge, one looks at how people actually change what they do in response to new methods becoming available, and one compares two groups within TNC and examines how their response to and alignment with the new methods differs. Read more about the overall project here: (will all be submitted by end of October, one as first author and the rest as a minor author)

9. We are working on a remote sensing analysis in high altitude grasslands of Peru, seeking to remotely estimate the amount of forage (grass etc) available for grazers, as part of a model that will support another water fund. I did much of the research design, but colleagues collected the field data and my intern Trisha is now beginning the remote sensing analysis. (should be submitted by end of December, maybe 3rd/4th author).

10. A peer-reviewed version of a report we wrote on the U.S. beef supply chain (impacts across different phases of production like grazing and feed production and feedlots) should also be submitted. The report was just released to stay tuned for a post about that.

Also I have a completed / reviewed / accepted CUP book chapter that has been in limbo for a few years (the one mentioned in #2 above) and should come out next year, and there are 1-2 more articles that may happen probably submitted early next year (led by others but on which I'd be a co-author). Stay tuned! Unless they're all rejected outright 2017 should be a good year for my publications...