Search

Transitioning to more sustainable agricultural practices is a key goal in agroecology. Before practices are adopted, however, farmers must weigh a complex set of biophysical and socioeconomic tradeoffs. Tarping is a weed control practice gaining popularity in New England, but many of its biophysical impacts remain unclear to farmers. Here, we used participatory action research to engage in mutual learning with farmers around the tradeoffs of tarping for weed control. We collected quantitative biophysical data with a field study and qualitative data on biophysical and socioeconomic factors by interviewing farmers. We found tarping has a number of benefits, challenges, and uncertainties, though most farmers had positive overall perceptions of the practice. Many of our biophysical results matched farmers' experiences, including that tarping dramatically heated soils, suppressed weeds, and increased crop yields. However, our mixed results for the effects of tarping on soil nitrate contrasted farmers' perception that tarping increases soil nitrate availability. Engaging in participatory and mixed methods research was an effective approach to unveil complex tradeoffs around tarping and ensure our research was relevant to farmer interests. Future research on long-term effects of tarps will be valuable to inform the sustainability of this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combining qualitative and quantitative methods and data is crucial to understanding the complex dynamics and often interdisciplinary nature of conservation. Many conservation scientists use mixed methods, but there are a variety of mixed methods approaches, a lack of shared vocabulary, and few methodological frameworks. We reviewed articles from 2 conservation‐related fields that often incorporate qualitative and quantitative methods: land‐change science (n = 16) and environmental management (n = 16). We examined how authors of these studies approached mixed methods research by coding key methodological characteristics, including relationships between method objectives, extent of integration, iterative interactions between methods, and justification for use of mixed methods. Using these characteristics, we created a typology with the goal of improving understanding of how researchers studying land‐change science and environmental management approach interdisciplinary mixed methods research. We identified 5 types of mixed methods approaches, which we termed simple nested, informed nested, simple parallel, unidirectional synthesis, and bidirectional synthesis. Methods and data sources were often used to address different research questions within a project, and only around half of the reviewed papers methodologically integrated different forms of data. Most authors used one method to inform the other, rather than both informing one another. Very few articles used methodological iteration. Each methodological type has certain epistemological implications, such as the disciplinary reach of the research and the capacity for knowledge creation through the exchange of information between distinct methodologies. To exemplify a research design that can lead to multidimensional knowledge production, we provide a methodological framework that bidirectionally integrates and iterates qualitative and quantitative methods. Article impact statement: Articles with mixed methods fit into 5 methodological types in which there is limited integration and iteration among methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent declines in anadromous river herring (AlewifeAlosa pseudoharengusand Blueback HerringA. aestivalis) have been documented in much of their range using fishery-independent spawning run counts. A lack of rigorous long-term run counts and demographic data for Chesapeake Bay spawning stocks resulted in the declaration of unknown stock status in a 2012 stock assessment and made it difficult to evaluate responses to conservation and restoration efforts. The objectives of the present study were to (1) conduct the first spawning run counts of river herring in the Choptank River, Maryland, since the run counts performed over a 2-year period in 1972 and 1973, (2) evaluate population structure and dynamics, and (3) identify environmental variables associated with run timing. Spawning runs of Alewives and Blueback Herring were recorded from March 10 to June 4, 2014, using imaging sonar and processed manually to produce hourly run counts of fish with TLs ranging from 200 to 350 mm. A total of 1,659,090 ± 91,250 fish with TLs of 200–350 mm (errors estimated using a CV of 5.5%) were estimated to swim upstream past the sonar unit. Boat electrofishing was conducted at weekly intervals to estimate species composition and obtain samples for demographic analysis. Using these species composition data to apportion run counts resulted in an estimated count of 581,275 ± 31,970 Alewives and 726,450 ± 39,955 Blueback Herring. Fish age by otolith analysis varied from 2 to 7 years and total instantaneous mortality (Z) was estimated at 1.47 (SE, 1.8 × 10−5) for Alewives and 1.91 (SE, 1.1 × 10−5) for Blueback Herring. Upstream migration occurred primarily in the afternoon and evening associated with increasing water temperature, and downstream migration occurred at low and decreasing levels of discharge. The present study established a new fishery-independent population monitoring effort for river herring in Chesapeake Bay and identified associations between environmental drivers and upstream and downstream movements. Received March 8, 2016; accepted August 31, 2016 Published online November 29, 2016 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]