**5. Agricultural land market trend and environmental sustainability**

From 2011 to 2014, the average value of all agricultural land in South Dakota increased from \$3350 to \$6175 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> [36]. The largest gains were observed in highly productive eastern South Dakota. For example, in the southeast and east central NASS regions, non-irrigated cropland had value of \$17,785 and \$15,827.5 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, in 2014. Slightly lower values were observed in the northeast where land values increased from \$7295 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2011 to \$13,227 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2014. Similar increases were observed in the north central and central regions. In north western South Dakota, land value increases were much lower, and from 2011 to 2014, it increased from \$1562 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> to \$2050 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> .

Native rangelands are highly concentrated in the western and central regions of South Dakota, whereas managed pastures are scattered without any particular region of state. Rangeland and pasture land values also tend to cluster in three different groups. East central and southeast regions had the highest rangeland values of \$7152 and \$6745 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively. When compared with 2011, these values represent a 60.82 and 69.79% increase in value. In the second cluster that consists of northeast, north central, and central NASS regions, the per hectare land values are 1859, 1600, and 1828 dollars, respectively. These regions had value increases of 52.75, 68.42, and 80.81% changes from 2011 to 2014. The regions with lowest range value were located in the western part of state and were \$1187 in the south central, \$571 in the southwest, and \$436 in northwest in 2014. The south central (SC), south west (SW), and north east (NE) regions had 87.2, 39.6, and 41.1% increases in rangeland value from 2011 to 2014.

Like South Dakota**,** Nebraska regional cropland values were clustered into the northeast, central, and western regions. From 2006 to 2014, the value of dry land cropland with irrigation potential in the northeast increased from \$4102 to 16,075 per hectare [38]. Similar increases were observed in the east and southeast areas. In the central region, land value increased from \$3625 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2006 to \$12,275 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2014. Similar gains were observed in the southern region. Western regions of the

*Land Use Change and Sustainability*

(0.74)

(1.84)

(2.31)

(0.17)

(0.85)

(2.40)

(2.63)

(0.29)

Crop-crop 0 32.92

Crop-grass 0 12

Grass-crop 0 23.81

Grass-grass 0 6.42

62.37 (1.37)

47.17 (9.50)

61.90 (7.34)

17.58 (0.86)

66.89 (1.42)

58.02 (10.75)

> 67.35 (7.58)

39.57 (1.90)

(3.62)

(12.74)

(18.22)

(0.68)

*Land-use change in different types of soil in South Dakota from 2012 to 2014.*

**Change category**

South Dakota

Crop-crop 7.42

Crop-grass 0.94

Grass-crop 2.38

Grass-grass 0.56

Crop-crop 8.56

Crop-grass 1.23

Grass-crop 2.72

Grass-grass 1.66

East

West

**Table 4.**

**4. Soil and environmental sustainability**

contents, and (4) reduced erosion [11, 12, 16].

organic carbon levels that increased 24% from 1985 t0 2012 [11].

One purpose of the LCC system is to provide guidance on sustainability. An implication of LCC system is that land-use changes are not sustainable if soil losses exceed the rate of soil production. However, since the development of the LCC system, during the 1940s, agricultural technologies have improved [30]. These improvements have resulted in (1) the adoption of no-tillage or conservation tillage and cover crops across the NGP, (2) higher yields, (3) increasing soil organic matter

**Land capability class (LCC) within a category with confidence interval for each proportion in parentheses LCC 1 LCC 2 LCC 3 LCC 4 LCC 5 LCC 6 LCC 7 Estimated** 

> 0.66 (0.23)

1.87 (2.59)

2.38 (2.31)

1.07 (0.23)

0.74 (0.26)

2.47 (3.38)

2.72 (2.63)

2.60 (0.62)

0.15 (0.30)

0.30 (0.15)

3.14 (0.49)

7.55 (5.03)

5.95 (3.58)

29.82 (1.03)

2.17 (0.44)

6.17 (5.24)

4.76 (3.44)

15.53 (1.41)

9.43 (2.25)

(12.74)

37.07 (1.34)

0 12

0 14.29 (14.97)

0.37 (0.17)

7.55 (5.03)

17.01 (0.85)

0.24 (0.15)

8.08 (1.06)

1.24 (0.85)

21.55 (1.14)

**2012–2014 % ha × 1000**

10.42 (0.86)

18.87 (7.45)

16.67 (5.64)

16.78 (0.84)

9.47 (0.89)

17.28 (8.23)

14.97 (5.77)

17.26 (1.47)

16.54 (2.86)

24 (16.74)

28.57 (19.32)

(1.03)

15.59 (1.02)

22.64 (7.97)

10.71 (4.68)

15.10 (0.81)

11.86 (0.98)

14.81 (7.74)

7.48 (4.25)

14.39 (1.37)

39.72 (3.77)

48 (19.58)

33.33 (20.16)

15.47 (1) 16.53

**land**

5810

150

11540

4720

3000

1090

8540

0 210

0 100

0 170

0 50

0 40

Given that technologies have changed since the 1940s, it is likely that classification approach based on the technologies of the 1940s may not be appropriate today. For example, Schuller et al. [31] reported that in Chile, adoption of no-tillage reduced erosion by 94% when compared with conventional tillage. Similarly, in South Dakota decreasing tillage intensity and increasing yields contributed to soil

**10**

state had the lowest price per hectare acre and value increases. For example, in the northwest, land value increased from \$1137 to \$2337 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> from 2006 to 2014.

Thus, the record land market value gain observed in South Dakota and Nebraska varied by region. These gains in land market value could be fueled by various factors such as better agricultural input and equipment supplies, increasing ethanol demand, spiking crop prices, and boosted US agricultural export opportunities [39, 40]. Maize-producing regions, which are the main input source for ethanol plants, had the greatest land value gain. For example, in Nebraska and South Dakota, market value increased within 50 miles of ethanol plants where ethanol production was highly concentrated [41].

However the climbing land values, on the other hand, could raise the farmer debt to buy new farm land. To repay debt from increased land purchase prices, farmers could be forced to intensify crop and livestock production for higher returns, regardless of long-term consequences to land use sustainability. But it is very important to note if such extensive agricultural expansion would be conducive to cropping system and environment. Especially in Northern Great Plains, where periodic patterns of drought persist, such agricultural practices may not be appropriate if expansions are not in more suitable climatic and soil conditions.
