Fig 1.
For field corn, conservation tillage increased in all but one region between 2016 and 2021.
This chart shows the percentage of fields in the ARMS sample for field corn that reported using conservation tillage in 2016 (n = 1,995) and 2021 (n = 968). The only region that did not experience an increase in the rate of conservation tillage over this period was the Northern Great Plains. Data are not reported for the Mississippi Portal because the ARMS field corn does not survey states in this region (including LA, MS, AR, and TN).
Fig 2.
For field corn, conservation tillage increased in all but three states from 2016 to 2021.
This chart shows the percentage of fields that reported using conservation tillage in 2016 (n = 1,995) and 2021 (n = 968) for the states included in the ARMS survey. The ARMS survey is only administered in states representing the vast majority of U.S. field corn production; therefore, not all states are represented in these results.
Fig 3.
For soybeans, conservation tillage increased in all but two regions from 2012 to 2018.
This chart shows the percentage of fields in the ARMS sample for soybeans that reported using conservation tillage in 2012 (n = 1,791) and 2018 (n = 2,260) by ERS Resource Region. No data are reported for the Fruitful Rim or Range and Basin regions because the ARMS soybean survey does not cover states in these regions even though some soybean production, albeit a small amount, does occur in them.
Fig 4.
For soybeans, conservation tillage adoption increased in most states from 2012 to 2018.
This chart shows the percentage of fields in the ARMS survey for soybeans that reported using conservation tillage in 2012 (n = 1,791) and 2018 (n = 2,260) among states included in the ARMS survey. The ARMS survey is only administered in states representing the vast majority of U.S. soybean production; therefore, not all states are represented in these results.
Table 1.
Average usage of 2,4-D, atrazine, and glyphosate among U.S. corn (2016 and 2021) and soybean (2012 and 2018) producers.
Fig 5.
Pre-emergent percent of crop treated is significantly higher for conservation tillage (both field corn and soybeans).
This chart shows the average percent of crop treated across field corn (2016, n = 1,995 and 2021, n = 968) and soybean (2012, n = 1,791and 2018, n = 2,260) fields for glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-D in the pre-emergent and post-emergent crop production phases.
Fig 6.
For field corn, pre-emergent glyphosate percent of crop treated was the strongest predictor of conservation tillage.
This chart shows CART analysis results for 2016 field corn responses (n = 1,995). Blue shading indicates that the model predicts conservation tillage use for the subgroup, with a darker color indicating a higher predicted probability. The word “conservation” or “conventional” in each blue or green box shows the tillage type predicted for that subgroup of producers. The middle number, expressed as a decimal, represents the probability of conventional tillage adoption. For blue-shaded boxes where conservation tillage is predicted, the probability of conservation tillage is calculated as 1 minus the value in the box (e.g., at node B, the predicted probability of conservation tillage is 1–0.14 = 0.86). The last number, expressed as a percentage represents the share of the training sample that is categorized into that subgroup (e.g., at node B, 22% of respondents are in this subgroup).
Fig 7.
For soybeans, pre-emergent glyphosate percent of crop treated was also the strongest predictor of conservation tillage.
This chart shows CART analysis results for 2018 soybean responses (n = 2,260). Blue shading indicates that the model predicts conservation tillage use for the subgroup, with a darker color indicating a higher predicted probability. The word “conservation” or “conventional” in each blue or green box indicates which tillage type the model predicts for that subgroup of producers. The middle number that is expressed as a decimal indicates the probability of conventional tillage adoption. For boxes shaded in blue, where conservation tillage is predicted, the predicted probability of conservation tillage is calculated as 1 minus the value in the box (e.g., at node B, the predicted probability of conservation tillage is 1–0.1 = 0.90). The last number in the boxes, expressed as percentages, indicate the share of the training sample categorized into that subgroup (e.g., at node B, the model categorizes 41% of respondents into this subgroup).