For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. 10. Diagram showing the GMTED2010 layer extents (minimum and maximum latitude and longitude) are a result of the coordinate system inherited from the 1-arc-second SRTM

Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010 (GMTED2010)

While there is a lot of literature from a natural or technical sciences perspective on different forms of digitalization in agriculture (big data, internet of things, augmented reality, robotics, sensors, 3D printing, system integration, ubiquitous connectivity, artificial intelligence, digital twins, and blockchain among others), social science researchers have recently started investigating different aspects of digital agriculture in relation to farm production systems, value chains and food systems. This has led to a burgeoning but scattered social science body of literature. There is hence lack of overview of how this field of study is developing, and what are established, emerging, and new themes and topics. This is where this article aims to make a contribution, beyond introducing this special issue which presents seventeen articles dealing with social, economic and institutional dynamics of precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming or agriculture 4.0. An exploratory literature review shows that five thematic clusters of extant social science literature on digitalization in agriculture can be identified: 1) Adoption, uses and adaptation of digital technologies on farm; 2) Effects of digitalization on farmer identity, farmer skills, and farm work; 3) Power, ownership, privacy and ethics in digitalizing agricultural production systems and value chains; 4) Digitalization and agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS); and 5) Economics and management of digitalized agricultural production systems and value chains. The main contributions of the special issue articles are mapped against these thematic clusters, revealing new insights on the link between digital agriculture and farm diversity, new economic, business and institutional arrangements both on-farm, in the value chain and food system, and in the innovation system, and emerging ways to ethically govern digital agriculture. Emerging lines of social science enquiry within these thematic clusters are identified and new lines are suggested to create a future research agenda on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0. Also, four potential new thematic social science clusters are also identified, which so far seem weakly developed: 1) Digital agriculture socio-cyber-physical-ecological systems conceptualizations; 2) Digital agriculture policy processes; 3) Digitally enabled agricultural transition pathways; and 4) Global geography of digital agriculture development. This future research agenda provides ample scope for future interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary science on precision farming, digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0.

A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda

Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways?

Plant uptake and denitrification are considered to be the most important processes responsible for N retention and mitigation in riparian buffers. In many riparian buffers, however, nutrients taken up by plants remain in the system only temporarily and may be gradually released by mineralization later. Still, plants increase the residence time of nutrients considerably by reducing their mobility. We investigated the importance of plant N uptake and N immobilization in litter for N retention in riparian buffers. Nitrogen uptake in vegetation and N dynamics in litter were measured over a two-year period in a range of forested and herbaceous riparian buffers along a climatic gradient in Europe, receiving different loadings of N-enriched groundwater. Plant production, nitrogen uptake, and N retention were significantly higher in the forested buffer sites compared to the herbaceous buffer sites. However, in herbaceous buffers, periodic harvesting of herbaceous biomass contributed considerably to the N retention. No relationship between lateral N loading and plant productivity or N uptake was observed; this indicated that plant growth was not N-limited. In the winter period, decaying leaf litter had a small but significant role in N retention in a majority of the riparian ecosystems studied. Moreover, no responses to the climatic gradient were found. Generally, we can state that annual N retention in the vegetation and litter compartment is substantial, making up 13–99% of the total N mitigation.

The role of vegetation and litter in the nitrogen dynamics of riparian buffer zones in Europe

The agricultural supply chains (ASCs) are exposed to unprecedented risks following COVID-19. It is necessary to investigate the impact of risks and to create resilient ASC organisations. In this st...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13675567.2020.1830049

Agriculture supply chain risks and COVID-19: mitigation strategies and implications for the practitioners

This paper summarises the early stages of the Smart AKIS project which aims to collect and disseminate Smart Farming Technologies (SFT) in line with farmers' needs. The methodology of collecting information and opinions from over 270 farmers from seven countries about SFTs is given. The methodology of collecting and analyzing the results of 718 scientific articles and 201 research projects to determine what the research topics and results are also outlined. Further information about the 164 SFT products that had been submitted by mid-January 2017 and entered into the inventory database are also summarized. There is outline information on how to submit research and product information to the inventory database on an on-going basis so that it can be promoted to end users (farmers, farming-advisors and contractors) and also seen by potential funders and collaborators for further product development and research collaboration which is also an objective of the Innovation Workshops which are starting in February 2017 around the seven countries.

Disseminating and Promoting Smart Farming Technologies –The SmartAKIS Network

ABSTRACT To successfully understand and shape biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands, it is crucial to understand how farmers’ relationship to biodiversity influences their goals and associated practices. We explored how farmers perceive and value biodiversity, how this is related to agricultural and land use practices, and how they view their roles in affecting it. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 farmers in the northern Italian Alps and with 6 experts in the fields of grassland management, agriculture, and environmental conservation in 2020. The farmers’ answers were analyzed using a mental model approach, relational thinking, and the literature on the ‘good farmer’. The experts’ responses were used to discuss and contextualize the farmer’s answers. We found that the farmers’ mental model of biodiversity is associated to different aspects of agricultural management practices and farmers’ roles in mountain agricultural landscapes. Instrumental values of biodiversity are negative and strongly perceived as such by farmers, while relational values associated with biodiversity are positive, but more weakly perceived. These differing perceptions and values seem to be associated with two roles that farmers have, as producers and landscape stewards, and how they value fodder quantity and quality. Most farmers don’t include considerations related to the conservation of biodiversity in their management decisions, and mostly do not envision any changes in biodiversity or management in the future. Effective biodiversity conservation in Alpine grasslands will therefore need to tap into these dual roles and the associated instrumental and relational values of biodiversity for a meaningful dialogue on conservation.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26395916.2022.2107080?needAccess=true

Maria Kernecker

Papers

Disseminating and Promoting Smart Farming Technologies –The SmartAKIS Network

Grassland farmers’ relationship with biodiversity: a case study from the northern Italian Alps