**4. Soil and environmental sustainability**

(0.68)

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

15.47 (1) 16.53

(1.03)

0.30 (0.15)

37.07 (1.34)

21.55 (1.14) 8540

**11**

*Soil and Land-Use Change Sustainability in the Northern Great Plains of the USA*

The conversion of grasslands to croplands may reduce methane sink, pest suppression, flood mitigation, pollination, and protection of grassland birds [32]. Land conversion is also likely to increase soil erosion if suitable management practices are

Land-use changes may be driven by a desire to stabilize economic returns in a region with a variable climate. In the NGP, increasing rainfall and temperatures provide an opportunity to grow annual crops [7]. Precipitation variability is projected to increase in Northern Great Plains [7, 14], while increasing atmospheric CO2 level may help by improving water-use efficiency and crop productivity [35]. Similarly, droughts result in losses in crop yield, grazing capacity, ground water, and plant

As discussed earlier, one of the primary factors influencing land-use change is economics. Farm economics is influenced by revenues received by farmers and yield and crop production costs [36]. These potential returns and cost vary in time and space. For example, during the period of 2006–2012, maize prices doubled from

in 2015. Similarly, soybean had similar changes in production cost and selling prices.

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

From 2011 to 2014, the average value of all agricultural land in South Dakota

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

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

. 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

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

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 2014. Similar gains were observed in the southern region. Western regions of the

to \$2050 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

In the central region, land value increased from \$3625 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

Marketing year average soybeans price received double from \$236.24 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

. However, the maize cost of production was lowest in 2000

, and maize prices decreased to \$135.94 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

in 2012. However, during the period between 2012 and 2014, the soybean

in 2011 to \$13,227 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

, respectively. When compared with 2011, these values

) and then decreased to \$1002.5 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

[36]. The largest gains were observed in highly

in 2006 to

[37].

,

in 2014. Similar

in 2006 to \$12,275 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

not adopted [13, 33] and reduce the amount of carbon stored in the soil [34].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84781*

composition and hydrologic condition of rangeland.

) and peaked in 2012 (\$1192.5 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

\$119.68 to \$271.26 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

price decreased to \$371.07 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

increased from \$3350 to \$6175 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

land values increased from \$7295 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

increased from \$1562 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

of \$7152 and \$6745 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

rangeland value from 2011 to 2014.

(\$395 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

\$529.06 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>

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

*Soil and Land-Use Change Sustainability in the Northern Great Plains of the USA DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84781*

The conversion of grasslands to croplands may reduce methane sink, pest suppression, flood mitigation, pollination, and protection of grassland birds [32]. Land conversion is also likely to increase soil erosion if suitable management practices are not adopted [13, 33] and reduce the amount of carbon stored in the soil [34].

Land-use changes may be driven by a desire to stabilize economic returns in a region with a variable climate. In the NGP, increasing rainfall and temperatures provide an opportunity to grow annual crops [7]. Precipitation variability is projected to increase in Northern Great Plains [7, 14], while increasing atmospheric CO2 level may help by improving water-use efficiency and crop productivity [35]. Similarly, droughts result in losses in crop yield, grazing capacity, ground water, and plant composition and hydrologic condition of rangeland.

As discussed earlier, one of the primary factors influencing land-use change is economics. Farm economics is influenced by revenues received by farmers and yield and crop production costs [36]. These potential returns and cost vary in time and space. For example, during the period of 2006–2012, maize prices doubled from \$119.68 to \$271.26 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> . However, the maize cost of production was lowest in 2000 (\$395 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) and peaked in 2012 (\$1192.5 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> ) and then decreased to \$1002.5 ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2015. Similarly, soybean had similar changes in production cost and selling prices. Marketing year average soybeans price received double from \$236.24 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2006 to \$529.06 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> in 2012. However, during the period between 2012 and 2014, the soybean price decreased to \$371.07 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , and maize prices decreased to \$135.94 Mg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> [37].
