“Acres Enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program – 2016.” Legislative Services Agency. December 2016. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FCTA/860716.pdf
This is a short source that includes a choropleth map of CRP county enrollment of total acreage in Iowa, and a dot-density map of the same subject for the entire United States. Again, as my project will focus on Iowa, I will only use this upper map/graph to my advantage. The graph shows total CRP acreage values from 1986 to 2016, which may help me in the process of creating a connection between the two variables I have chosen to research. Further, it provides me with an example of what my CRP static map should look like for 2016, given that this source used the same USDA data that I will likely be using for my project. With this, the map can be used as a reference/checking point to ensure I have transferred all of the data correctly. I may use this first so that I can double-check my work, and then move on to the rest of my project with confidence that everything is accurately depicted.
Allen Thomas et al. “Recreational Use & Economics of Conservation Reserve (CRP) Acreage: A National Survey of Landowners.” Southwick Associates, Inc. & D.J. Case & Associates. January 2008. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/national_survey_of_landowners.pdf
This source is a report for the ENTIRE United States, showing not land use statistics, but how the CRP land was used. This is an important story for my project. If CRP land is not majorly used for hunting, or habitation of deer, then my correlation makes no sense. However, this report details the hunting and recreational use of CRP. I could use the data to convince/argue my point that CRP is indeed critical for deer hunting/population numbers. In this source, CRP land was used for recreation 57% of the time, and of this 89% of the “recreation” was hunting. That means that 50.73% of all CRP land is for hunting. That helps support my argument and I can use that to tie the two variables I chose (CRP and deer harvests) together.
“Conservation Reserve Program Acreage by County.” U.S. Geological Survey. May 31, 2023. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/conservation-reserve-program-acreage-by-county.
This set of data has acreage of land enrolled in the CRP programs from the year 1987-2004. Interestingly, it excludes data from 1994 and 1995, so I would need to do further research to see why that may be the case. Not only this but it covers why CRP is beneficial to wildlife populations in a short introduction, that I may also use if I decide to make a final project storymap. Another interesting aspect of this site is that it allows you to update the dataset and the static map portrays changes alongside the data change. This is something I would like to do, or something of a timeline to allow the stacking of multiple static maps. I have encountered another data set with CRP acreage values, so I can use these two sources to compare and contrast the numbers and (hopefully) find that they are relatively similar if not exactly the same. This again can help me feel confident in my final project and ensure that my maps are accurate.
“Conservation Reserve Program Statistics.” USDA Farm Service Agency. December 2023. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/reports-and-statistics/conservation-reserve-program-statistics/index.
On the opposing end of the project, this source covers nearly everything I would need for CRP acreage values. It has a multitude of data sources (20+) that include land use by county, # of CRP contracts, yearly soil reports, rental rates (which I could use to help decipher the first source), nationwide annual summaries, and many more. It is very useful for creating the other half of my project in which I will compare static maps of 5-10 year increments showing the changes in CRP acres per county and how this correlates to hunting success/deer harvest in that county.
“EWG’s Agriculture Conservation Database.” EWG Conservation Database (Iowa) Conservation Reserve Program. Accessed April 2, 2024. https://conservation.ewg.org/crp.php?fips=19000.
This source is a useful tool in tracking land use patterns among counties and CRP payment values, as well as the amount of acreage contracted for specific CRP projects (wetlands, quail population, etc.). Using this data and contrasting it to deer harvest reports for the year, I can see what CRP projects produce a greater deer harvest overall (ie: what projects are also good for deer habitation). I could also use previous years reports to see the change in total CRP acreage and if that had impacts on the # of reported deer kills on a year by year basis.
Harms Tyler et al. “Iowa Bow Hunter Observation Survey: 2022 Summary.” Iowa Department of Natural Resources. December 2022. https://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/trends/observation_2022.pdf
In this survey, the DNR asks bowhunters to report the number of deer sightings they have per 1,000 hours hunted, and splits the results into 9 geographic areas: Northwest, Northcentral, Northeast, Westcentral, Central, Eastcentral, Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast. With these numbers, they use an algorithm to estimate the total deer population for these areas. They have reports for 2012 and up, and have split the results into different genders (for deer) and also have reports for bobcat, coyote, badger, and other species. In my project, I would focus on the deer report numbers. I would like to have data from much further back so that I could verify the trends, so I will look deeper into that. Since CRP is a main habitation area for deer, I could track how CRP acreage values in these regions have changed over time, and how that has impacted population (or rather, directly influence deer sightings which the DNR believes correlates to population numbers). There are many other factors that influence deer sightings, but the DNR itself uses this data to estimate population so that is enough confidence for me to be able to do the same. Not great data, but I would only use this if absolutely need be, as accuracy is a goal for me.
“Iowa’s Population Trends.” Iowa DNR. Accessed March 28, 2024. https://www.iowadnr.gov/hunting/population-harvest-trends.
In this source, population surveys are recorded year by year including “White-tailed Deer, Wild Turkeys, Furbearers, Waterfowl, Upland Wildlife, Peregrine Falcon, Osprey, Sandhill Crane, Bald Eagle, River Otter, Bobcat, Mountain Lion, Black Bear, Gray Wolf, Trumpeter Swan, Greater Prairie Chicken.” Of most importance, white-tailed deer population numbers could be used to track how CRP affects these values. Further, if I wanted to differentiate my project I could use turkeys/eagles/bobcat populations and see how CRP affects the ecology of these species. However, I would likely focus on deer and how their population fluctuates alongside CRP and harvests for the previous year. This data may not be as convincing/argumentative as populations tend to be estimates rather than true representations. If only we could lawfully enforce an animal census.
Lyon, Kayla. “Trends in Iowa Wildlife Populations and Harvest 2020-2021.” Iowa Department of Natural Resources. September 2021. https://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/trends/logbook_2020.pdf.
This source is the best comprehensive report of deer harvesting one could find. It tracks every harvest by county from 1953 up to 2021, success rates, kill per square mile, anything I could ever need for the deer harvest comparison aspect of my project. There are multiple maps that I may use in a story map, raw data I could standardize to create my own static maps, and many other options. In terms of what/why this source is useful, it could entirely make up half of my project (I will not use it as such, but it could be if needed)!
Lyon, Kayla. “Trends in Iowa Wildlife Populations and Harvest 2021-2022.” Iowa Department of Natural Resources. September 2022. https://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/trends/logbook_2022.pdf
If this citation looks awfully similar to the one above, well that’s because it is. Through my first round of research, the latest data I could find was for the 2021 season and before. Going back through my sources, I now found data for the 2022 season–in which I somehow missed in my first scan. Similar to the comprehensive report from 2021, this source details every kill from the season, population survey trends, graphs showing harvest numbers throughout the year, quotas, numbers of licenses sold, and many other important statistics to help me promote my argument for my final project. This source will be helpful as it is another piece of relevant and recent data to show how the trends continue to today. I would like to have reports from the most recent seasons (2023 and 2024) but I do not believe that will happen until later: likely September of this year. I will use the data and maps/graphs presented in this PDF to create static choropleth maps of standardized harvest numbers.
“Trophy Deer Taken in Iowa.” Iowa DNR. Accessed March 24, 2024. https://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/Hunting/iowatrophydeer.pdf.
This source is a comprehensive report detailing trophy buck kills by county, from the year 1953 and on-ward, when they were killed, during what season, and their total score (inches). If wanting to relate CRP back to trophy buck kills, I could sort this data into years, then by county, and average out their total score to see how this related to CRP land use of that given year. Or, I could average it out in 5-10 year increments and complete the same process. This would be a more niche project, though still very intriguing. After all, a lot of hunters today are after those that you hang on the wall, and not as much about just getting meat in the freezer. But that’s a whole different issue in itself.
Secondary sources:
Allen, Arthur W., and Mark W. Vandever. “Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Contributions to Wildlife Habitat, Management Issues, Challenges and Policy Choices.” Scientific Investigations Report (2012): 5066. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5066/SIR12-5066.pdf
This source itself is an annotated bibliography of hundreds of secondary sources that help to explain the ecological mechanisms behind the changes that CRP produces. There are sections on ecosystems, energy maintenance, mammals, wildlife habitats, predation, and many more topics that would again help me understand the why behind CRP, and be better able to convince the audience of my argument. Understanding why/how the CRP is crucial for deer population and hunting is a necessary aspect of my project. Even if I decide to do a project of layered static maps, I would like to include an introduction page so that my reader is not blindly thrown into a topic they do not know about. Sure, I may be able to communicate change over time through maps, but if the reader does not understand the topic/context then their conclusion is of lesser significance than it would be with the right context. I would use this source, and the many sources listed within it, to aid in that process.
Bangsund, Dean A., Nancy M. Hodur, and Larry F. Leistritz. “Agricultural and Recreational Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program in Rural North Dakota, USA.” Journal of Environmental Management 71, no. 4 (July 2004): 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.12.017
This source discusses the long-term effects of retiring croplands for other uses (mainly CRP). Similarly to the article by Loomis, the economic aspects of CRP are discussed. Unsurprisingly, CRP has a negative impact on agricultural business–but benefitted business surrounding hunting. With this, the research concluded that CRP should only be implemented in areas with low agricultural productivity. In an attempt to convince those who are not on the side of CRP, I could use this source to help convince them not to turn fully to CRP, but only in areas that do not have a great agricultural output.
Grovenburg, Troy W., Christopher N. Jacques, Robert W. Klaver, and Jonathan A. Jenks. “Drought Effect on Selection of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands by White-Tailed Deer on the Northern Great Plains.” The American Midland Naturalist 166, no. 1 (2011): 147–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41288694.
This source describes observed deer foraging for different seasons (summer, vs. not summer). In the summer, deer often picked crops for feeding, and all other seasons picked CRP wetlands. They also noted that the most important factor was access to water. Again, I would use the data collected and discussion following to support my proposition of correlation between CRP and hunt success.
Grovenburg, Troy W., Robert W. Klaver, and Jonathan A. Jenks. “Spatial Ecology of White-Tailed Deer Fawns in the Northern Great Plains: Implications of Loss of Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, no. 3 (2012): 632–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41418526.
This source monitored 81 white-tailed deer fawns and how their movement changed over the course of changing CRP land uses. They saw that fawns located within land dedicated to CRP moved significantly less than the deer who did not have the cover from CRP. This is due to the available vegetation and protection from predators that the CRP allows for. As for areas that tended to have crops (corn/wheat), fawns were tracked to move at a much greater extent: likely showing that the food sources were more scattered and predation was of greater consequence. Fawns are the largest contributor to future growth/management (as nearly ~25% of the entire deer population is killed in the hunting season) so learning how to increase their likelihood of survival is critical. This source could be used to show just that, and how CRP needs to be here to ensure a stable future of the species.
Kaminski, Dan J., Tyler M. Harms, and Jim M. Coffey. “Using Spotlight Observations to Predict Resource Selection and Abundance for White-Tailed Deer.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 83, no. 7 (2019): 1565–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26776710.
This source discusses the relation between quality of habitat and species distribution (of white-tailed deer). Instead of simply willing the reader to believe me in saying that CRP leads to an increased deer population, I can use this journal entry to help show evidence/reasoning why deer tend to choose natural vegetation for bedding and home regions.
Loomis, John, and Michelle Haefele. “Economic Contribution, Impacts, and Economic Benefits of Deer, Waterfowl and Upland Game Bird Hunting in North and South Dakota: Relationship to CRP Lands.” Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics at Colorado State University. September 19, 2015.
In an interesting turn, this source talks about the economic implications/benefits that CRP land has. The study area was the entirety of North and South Dakota, and they found that CRP and the hunting that occurs on it creates $448 million in revenue for both of the states combined. This is a huge number. In an effort to convince my audience that we need more CRP and not less, I would use this staggering data point and the many other economic benefits it lists to my advantage.
McCoy, Timothy D., Eric W. Kurzejeski, Loren W. Burger, and Mark R. Ryan. “Effects of Conservation Practice, Mowing, and Temporal Changes on Vegetation Structure on CRP Fields in Northern Missouri.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 29, no. 3 (2001): 979–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784426.
Many of these secondary sources will be used to set the background information needed for the reader, or help to convince the reader of my argument. This source does the former. In order to understand why CRP works, you must understand the management and influence this has on wildlife. This source talks about how CRP land changed in its vegetation once enrolled in the program, and how this may affect species living within the ecosystem. I would use this information to help support my argument of CRP increasing deer populations.
Nagy-Reis, Mariana B., Mark A. Lewis, William F. Jensen, and Mark S. Boyce. “Conservation Reserve Program Is a Key Element for Managing White-Tailed Deer Populations at Multiple Spatial Scales.” Journal of Environmental Management 248 (October 15, 2019): 109299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109299.
In an effort to convince my audience as well as gain insight for my own benefit, this paper details how CRP and wetlands influence populations: most notably, white-tail deer population. This survey occurred outside of my mapping borders in North Dakota, but I could use the evidence and knowledge to apply to the state of Iowa. In an effort to introduce my topic and my argument, I must convince the readers that CRP does have an unquestionable effect on deer population–in turn leading to greater harvests. If more numbers are seen, more hunters will have an opportunity to shoot and kill the animal they are after. This source shows exactly how CRP affects population numbers, and presents data to support this argument. The ecological aspect behind this is rather unknown to me at this moment, so reading more about why CRP leads to an increase in white-tailed deer population specifically will be beneficial.
Walter, W. David, Kurt C. Vercauteren, Jason M. Gilsdorf, and Scott E. Hygnstrom. “Crop, Native Vegetation, and Biofuels: Response of White-Tailed Deer to Changing Management Priorities.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 73, no. 3 (2009): 339–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40208533.
This source captured and observed 351 deer, tracking how management variance led to behavioral changes. Interestingly, this study showed that home ranges for deer did not change even when primary food sources were removed by the team. The studied deer preferred native grasses/natural forage over crops, but would occasionally shift towards using crops for food only if absolutely necessary. Further, the study noted a 77% overlap of home ranges for the entirety of a deer’s life, showing that they are very territorial. Changing the landscape did not push away deer, instead it just increased/decreased their survival. For this reason, shifting towards CRP would help deer populations as the study noted their preference for natural forages. I would use this source as evidence of such an argument.
Weber, Whitney L., John L. Roseberry, and Alan Woolf. “Influence of the Conservation Reserve Program on Landscape Structure and Potential Upland Wildlife Habitat.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 30, no. 3 (2002): 888–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784244.
This source talks about the necessary balances needed between CRP and crops. Obviously, you can not eliminate crops completely due to the economic value they hold; but endless ranges of croplands are also not sustainable. Overall, the journal entry focuses on vegetation and the benefits CRP has with this–and makes a point that every field will have a different need. Some may have no CRP, others 20%, others 55%. It is not about sheer acreage values, but rather what the landscape needs. I could use this source, like many of the other secondary sources, to help my introduction/context section.
