Land Use, Land Cover, and Climate Change Across the

Mississippi Basin: Impacts on Selected Land and Water

Resources
Jonathan A. Foley, Christopher J. Kucharik, Tracy E. Twine, and Michael T. Coe
Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), Nelson Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

Simon D. Donner
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New
Jersey

The Mississippi Basin is the third largest drainage basin in the world and is home
to one of the most productive agricultural regions on Earth. Here we discuss how land
use/land cover change and climatic variability may be affecting some key environ-
mental processes across the Mississippi and how these, in turn, affect the flow of
selected ecosystem goods and services in the region. Specifically, we consider the
recent history of land use/land cover change, crop yields, basin river flow and hydrol-
ogy, and large-scale water quality in the Mississippi Basin. We find that agricultural
activities may have had a profound influence on the basin and may have shifted the
flow of many ecosystem goods and services into agricultural commodities, at the
expense of altering many of the important biogeochemical linkages between atmos-
phere, land, and water.

1. INTRODUCTION
Covering roughly 3.2 million km2, the Mississippi River
drainage basin is the third largest basin in the world (Plate
1). Extending over more than 48% of the continental United
States, the Mississippi Basin is home to roughly 70 million
people, plus a $100 billion per year agricultural economy
[Goolsby et al., 1999].
The Mississippi Basin also contains some of the richest
farmland found anywhere in the world. For example, the
region produces approximately 40% of the world’s corn and
is responsible for about 70% of global corn exports, but does
Ecosystems and Land Use Change
Geophysical Monograph Series 153
Copyright 2004 by the American Geophysical Union
10.1029/153GM19
so with only 20% of the world’s corn acreage [USDA, 2003].
In addition, the Mississippi Basin is a major producer of soy-
beans (with over 40% of global soybean production), wheat,
cotton, and other important agricultural commodities [USDA,
2003]. However, this impressive litany of agricultural pro-
duction statistics does not come without significant environ-
mental costs. Soil erosion, the destruction of native habitats,
and a decline in biological diversity have all accompanied the
transformation of the basin into a major agricultural region.
Agricultural practices have also had a profound impact on
the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, and phospho-
rus in the region. For example, agricultural land use has caused
significant environmental losses of soil organic material
[Mann, 1986; Darmody and Peck, 1997; Paustian et al., 1997;
Kucharik et al., 2001], resulting in decreased soil “tilth,”
increased sediment loading in rivers, and the transfer of soil
carbon to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Furthermore,

249
 250
LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI

Plate 1. The Mississippi Basin. The Mississippi River Basin, the world’s third largest, is home to some of the most productive farmland on the planet.
The river drains some 3.2 million km2 and is home to 70 million people plus a $100 billion agricultural economy [Goolsby et al., 1999].

fertilizer use in the basin has led to increasing flows of excess
nitrogen and phosphorus to surface and groundwater systems,
ultimately causing serious degradation of freshwater and
coastal ecosystems [Goolsby et al., 1999; Donner et al., 2002;
Donner and Kucharik, 2003].
Altogether, land use and water management practices tied
to agriculture have had a strong influence over much of the
basin. But understanding how the environmental systems and
natural resources of the Mississippi Basin may respond to
agricultural land use and land cover change is difficult, because
of the complex linkages between different components of the
earth system operating in the region. It is therefore necessary
to understand the interactions between the atmosphere, ter-
restrial ecosystems, and aquatic systems of the basin, and
how they are affected by human activities (Figure 1).
In this chapter, we will consider how the interactions among
the atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystems, and aquatic ecosys-
tem of the Mississippi Basin produce ecosystem goods and
services (e.g., “provisioning” services like food production,
plus “supporting” services such as providing clean water and
the maintenance of regular water flows) that are of signifi-
cant importance to humanity.
Figure 1. Interactions among ecological, hydrological and climate
systems in the Mississippi Basin.
FOLEY ET AL. 251
We will examine the results of several modeling studies
that have been used to characterize the behavior of terrestrial
ecosystems and freshwater systems across the Mississippi
Basin, and how they respond to environmental and human
drivers. In particular, we will focus our discussion on a few key
questions:
1. How are the land use and land cover of the Missis-
sippi Basin changing?
2. How might land use/land cover change, combined with
climate variability, affect the production of crops in
the region?
3. How might land use/land cover change, combined with
climate variability, affect the hydrology and water qual-
ity of the region?
2. HOW ARE LAND USE AND LAND COVER
CHANGING IN THE MISSISSIPPI?
The Mississippi Basin covers a wide range of climatic and
topographic regimes across the United States, ranging from
mesic temperate forests in the east to dry shrublands and irri-
gated agriculture in the west. If we consider the patterns of
precipitation across the basin (Plate 1), we note that the 600
mm isoline of mean annual precipitation divides the eastern
(semi-humid) part of the basin from the semi-arid western
portion. Rain-fed corn and soybean cropping systems, grass-
lands, pastures, and forests dominate the eastern half of the
basin. Rain-fed wheat, irrigated (corn, soybean) cropping
systems, grasslands, and shrublands dominate the western
portion of the basin.
The Mississippi Basin spans a range of ecological and cli-
matic zones, but one important feature is consistent through-
out: human land use, especially for agriculture, is very common
(Plate 1). Roughly 30% of the basin is currently covered in
croplands [Donner, 2003; Table 1].
While the Mississippi Basin has been one of the most pro-
ductive agricultural regions on the planet for many years, it has
also undergone major changes in the last several decades. The
increasing industrialization of agriculture since the 1950s has
led to a dramatic change in the diversity and distribution of
agricultural land cover and land use practices in the Mississippi
Basin, despite a small decrease in total agricultural land area
[Ramankutty and Foley, 1998, 1999; Hurtt et al., 2001; Don-
ner, 2003]. As the agricultural sector made large investments
in infrastructure, mechanical equipment, agrichemicals, and
genetic modification, Mississippi Basin croplands became
increasingly dominated by corn, soybean, and wheat cultiva-
tion. Today, these three primary crops comprise over 65% of
all cropland area in the Mississippi Basin, up from 46% in
252 LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI
1950 [Donner, 2003; USDA, 2003]. The agriculture of the
basin has also become more specialized by region: for exam-
ple, since 1950, corn cultivation has become even more con-
centrated in the fertile “Corn Belt” states from Nebraska east
to Ohio, at the expense of cultivation in the southeastern U.S.
[Hurtt et al., 2001; Donner, 2003].
One of the most significant changes in Mississippi land cover
during the last 50 years was the expansion in soybean cultiva-
tion at the expense of other, less popular and less profitable
crops [Donner, 2003]. The planted area of soybeans increased
from only 3.5% of Mississippi croplands in 1950 to over 22%
today [Donner, 2003; USDA, 2003]. Most of this change
occurred within the central U.S. and lower Mississippi Valley
where soybeans could be cultivated in rotation with nitrogen-
demanding corn. During this same period, corn (from 22.1%
to 22.6% of the total cropland in the United States) and wheat
(from 20.4% to 21.4%) cultivation remained fairly constant.
The soybean plant is able to fix nitrogen directly out of the
air through a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria and,
therefore, does not require agricultural nitrogen fertilizer
(although, as noted below, many farmers still fertilize soy-
beans); this makes soybeans not only less expensive to produce
but also a potential source of soil nitrogen when grown in
rotation with other crops [Jaynes et al., 2001].
Farming practices in the basin have also changed dramati-
cally during the last several decades. One of the most impor-
tant changes in farm management has been the explosive
increase in industrial fertilizer use, such as particular nitrogen
fertilizers. Total nitrogen fertilizer use in the U.S. increased by
almost 20-fold from the mid-1940s to the mid-1980s, despite
the slight decrease in total cropland area [Alexander and
Smith, 1990; Battaglin and Goolsby, 1996]. The rate of nitro-
gen fertilizer application on high-yielding crops like corn,
cotton and rice leaped from negligible levels in the 1940s to
over 150 kg N ha-1yr-1 on average and well over 200 kg ha-1yr-
1 in some Mississippi Basin states [USDA, 1994, 2003; Don-
ner et al., submitted, 2004.]. Nitrogen fertilizer is even applied
to a substantial proportion of nitrogen-fixing soybeans in
many states; for example, in 2002 North Dakota farmers
treated 64% of soybean lands with nitrogen fertilizer at an
average rate of 30 kg N ha-1yr-1.
Today, the fertilizer practices of individual farm operators
vary widely within agricultural regions and even within states
and counties, due to both crop demands and economic concerns.
For example, Shepard [2000] found that 14% of Wisconsin
farmers regularly applied more than twice the surveyed mean
of 214 kg N ha-1 on corn crops, which was already greater
than the average USDA recommended rate of 176 kg N ha-1.
In short, the last fifty years have seen several important
changes to the land cover and land use practices in the Mis-
sissippi Basin. Overall, there has been a slight decrease in
cropland during the last fifty years and a dramatic reduction
in cropping diversity. Today, corn, soybeans, and wheat dom-
inate the basin. Over the last fifty years, corn and wheat areas
have remained roughly constant, while soybeans have dra-
matically increased in area, at the expense of less profitable

crops. There has been a geographic consolidation of crops as
well, with corn production increasingly concentrated in the
central “Corn Belt” states. Another major change in farming
practices has been the massive increase in fertilizer use across
the basin, particularly nitrogen fertilizers. Corn has seen a
nearly 20-fold increase in fertilizer application rates, and soy-
beans (which do not necessarily require fertilizer) also showed
significant increases in fertilizer application rates. Taken
together, there has been a massive net increase in fertilizer
application. Today, the land use of the basin is much more
specialized and intensified than ever before from following a
highly industrialized agricultural model (see DeFries et al.,
this volume.
3. HOW ARE CROP YIELDS IN THE BASIN
CHANGING?
Crop yields in the Mississippi Basin have been steadily
increasing over the last several decades. While changes in
yield are not evenly distributed over space and time, and there-
fore remain difficult to characterize with a simple statistic, it
is useful to note that mean U.S. crop yields have increased
from 1.6 to 8.5 T ha-1 over the past century [USDA, 2003].
Most of the yield improvements are likely due to changing
farm management behaviors—including the introduction of
improved cultivars (better plant genetics producing high yield-
ing varieties), increased fertilizer use (to enhance soil nutri-
ent status), higher planting densities (closer row spacing),
increased reliance on irrigation (to reduce water stress), and
agrichemicals (to reduce losses to pests and diseases)—and
through the use of improved farm machinery [Thompson,
1988; Naylor et al., 1997]. However, climatic and geograph-
ical factors still exert an overarching influence on crop yield
across the Mississippi Basin, where precipitation (timing and
magnitude), temperature (extremes, and seasonal accumula-
tion of growing degree-days), soil fertility, and irrigation
strategies are the dominant controls [Ramankutty et al., 2002].
An important question to ask is whether recent changes in
crop yield are entirely due to management changes or whether
changes in climate have had any effect. This dynamic rela-
tionship is particularly important in helping us understand
the potential for future climate change to change the agricul-
tural production of the region.
First, we can consider how the present-day climate affects
yield. Plate 2 depicts the average USDA reported corn yield
over the central U.S. for the 1990–2001 period. Several pat-
terns are clearly illustrated in this map. First, there is a cen-
tralized area of high yield across southern Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, with yields
decreasing to the north, northwest, and south. This region of
high corn production—the so-called “Corn Belt”—generally
FOLEY ET AL. 253
lies where there is an adequate growing season and the amount
of precipitation is sufficient and coincides with the time period
(July) when corn plants are experiencing rapid leaf area expan-
sion, reaching the silking stage, and progressing into the begin-
ning reproductive (grain fill) stages [Thompson, 1986, 1988].
Next, we may ask how recent changes in climate might be
influencing yields across the basin. Work by Lobell and Asner
[2003a,b] demonstrated that there were significant correla-
tions between observed variations of corn/soybean yields and
temperature between 1982 and 1998. They found that nearly
20% of the yield increases occurring across the central U.S.
may have been linked to changes in climate, and not through
changes in farm management. Lobell and Asner went on to
suggest that, in a historical context, long-term gains in crop
productivity, which previously have been attributed to con-
tinually advancing technology and management should be
reduced by approximately 20%.
While Lobell and Asner [2003a,b] concluded that changes
in temperature potentially influenced corn and soybean yields
during their 17-year study, they were unable to determine
whether these trends were the result of “direct” physiological
effects of climate on crops or of “indirect” farmer management
adjustments to a changing climate. Following this work,
Kucharik [in preparation] used a physiologically based–crop
yield model [Kucharik and Brye, 2003; Kucharik, in press] and
historical USDA county-level corn yield data to further inves-
tigate how decadal-scale climate changes may have affected
corn yields across the Mississippi Basin from 1958 to 2001.
Kucharik’s [in press] analysis shows that the optimum spring-
time corn planting dates (as determined by climate) have
become earlier and earlier by as much as 6 to 16 days between
the 1960s and the 1990s (or up to 0.4 days per year) (Plate 3).
This result is in general agreement with satellite observations
showing an advance in the growing season of approximately
8 days across the northern hemisphere between 1981 and
1991 [Myneni et al., 1997]. Furthermore, other studies have
indicated that the growing season has lengthened by over 10
days in Europe since the early 1960s [Menzel and Fabian,
1999] and that the growing season in Illinois has increased
[Robeson, 2002]. Likewise, compilations of spring flower
bloom data as well as records of the arrival of migratory birds
by Schwartz and Reiter [2000] and Bradley et al. [1999] have
suggested that 5- to 7-day earlier spring onsets have also taken
place during the mid- to later portions of the 20th century.
However, this degree of springtime warming appears to
decrease significantly towards the southern boundaries of the
Corn Belt, as optimum planting dates actually shifted later in
the year by 1 to 5 days from eastern Kansas through Missouri
and central Illinois and Indiana. We note that these two distinct
regions roughly correspond with the division of where cooler
and warmer temperature trends are significant in the Lobell and
254 LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI
Asner [2003a] analysis, even though the periods of consider-
ation do not exactly correspond between the two studies.
Using a mechanistic crop growth and yield model, Kucharik
[in press] found that there was a significant change in corn
yields between the 1960s and the 1990s, entirely driven by
changes in climate (considering both changes in temperature
and precipitation) and the optimal springtime planting dates
(Plate 3). The earlier planting dates over much of the north-
west portion of the study region coincided with a simulated
0.25 to 3 Mg ha-1 increase in corn yield. If corn had not been
planted earlier (in response to the earlier springtime temper-
atures) the increases in yield would have been much smaller.
Kucharik [in press] hypothesizes that the region of the
Northern Great Plains that was delineated by Lobell and Asner
[2003a] with significant correlations between warmer tem-
peratures and increasing yields has likely seen significant
changes in management over the past several decades, most
likely through changing choices of corn hybrids (which affect
the degree-day requirements to silking and maturity), plant-
ing dates, or a combination of the two in response to spring-
time warming. Therefore, in this region, farmer adaptation to
climate (an “indirect” response of crops to shifting climate
patterns) may have taken precedence over the “direct” eco-
logical effects of warmer temperatures towards increasing
corn production.
There are also indications that the instability (or year to
year fluctuations) in U.S. corn yield has escalated since the
1950s [Naylor et al., 1997; Kucharik and Ramankutty, pers.
comm.] and that yield growth (annual increases in produc-
tion) at the national level have fallen to a rate that will be
unable to keep up with future population growth [Duvick and
Cassman, 1999]. These studies suggest that as yields approach
potential ceilings across the U.S. Corn Belt, they may be at a
higher risk for catastrophic losses. Naylor et al. [1997] pointed
out that as yield ceilings are approached, poor weather years
can have a much more significant impact on yield than do
favorable weather years, primarily because yields have fur-
ther to fall from a perceived average threshold. Additionally,
as yield growth rates plateau, interannual variability due to
weather fluctuations are easier to detect and separate from
the overall trend. Therefore, this may leave a false perception
that the frequency of extreme weather occurrences (e.g.,
drought, early frost, spring flooding) that are detrimental to
crop production may also be increasing.
Kucharik’s [in press] analysis of historical USDA corn yield
data and crop modeling results found that significant changes
in crop yield variability can be detected on decadal time scales.
In agreement with Naylor et al. [1997], Kucharik finds that
interannual variability in yield has increased by approximately
5% to 20% between the 1950s and the 1990s over a large por-
tion of the Corn Belt, with the exception of portions of South
Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and southern Illinois. The
increasing use of irrigation in the Great Plains has translated
into a widespread 10–30% decrease in interannual variability
while simultaneously boosting yields by greater than 50%
compared to rain-fed corn.
Taken together, these studies suggest that the dominant
changes in crop yield in the Mississippi Basin are caused by
changes in farm management. However, a careful analysis of
historical climate and yield data—combined with process-
based crop modeling—suggests that changes in climate also
contribute to increasing yield trends. Interestingly, the changes
in climate appear to affect yield “indirectly” through farmer
behavior; for example, warmer temperatures allow farmers
to plant corn earlier in the spring than they otherwise could,
thereby enhancing yields for the entire season. Analyses of
historical crop yield data also suggest that the variability of
crop yields is increasing but not necessarily due to increasing
climatic variability. Instead, it appears that yields are reaching
a “ceiling” in some regions where variations in weather appear
to have larger negative impacts.
4. HOW IS THE HYDROLOGY OF THE BASIN
CHANGING?
Changes in climate during the last few decades have had a
significant impact on the water balance and river hydrology
of the basin. For example, stream-gauge data indicate that the
annual mean discharge of the Mississippi River has increased
by almost 30% between the 1950s and the 1990s [Goolsby et
al., 1999; Donner et al., 2002]. This trend has been attrib-
uted to an increase in precipitation and runoff, particularly
during the spring and early fall, in the northern and central parts
of the Mississippi River Basin [Baldwin and Lall, 1999;
Goolsby et al., 1999; Donner et al., 2002]. At the same time,
the seasonality of runoff and discharge has decreased due to
an increase in the fall and winter streamflow (Lettenmaier et
al., 1994; Lins and Slack, 1999). This decrease in the sea-
sonality, despite an increase in the annual mean, is likely a
result of more diffuse spring snowmelt and increased late
autumn and winter precipitation in much of the basin [Let-
tenmaier et al., 1994; Baldwin and Lall, 1999; Donner et al.,
submitted].
Land use and land cover change may also cause important
changes to the hydrology of the basin through their impacts on
the land surface energy and water balance. In particular, land
cover change (e.g., from a natural landscape to an agricul-
tural system) can alter evapotranspiration, soil moisture, water
yield, and river discharge [Bruijnzeel, 1990; Sahin and Hall,
1996; Wang and Eltahir, 2000; Costa et al., submitted, 2004].
Furthermore, changes in land use practices (e.g., irrigation, fer-
tilization, and crop rotation) can affect both the quantity and
 FOLEY ET AL. 255

Plate 2. Average USDA-reported corn yield over the central United

States for the 1990–2001 period. Several patterns are clearly observed
in the geographic patterns of corn yield across the central United
States. First, there is a centralized area of high yield (the so-called
“Corn Belt”) across southern Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio, with yields decreasing to the north, northwest, and
south. This region of high corn production is generally where there
is an adequate growing season, and the amount of precipitation is suf-
ficient and coincides with the time period (July) when corn plants
are experiencing rapid leaf area expansion, reach the silking stage,
and progress into the beginning reproductive (grain fill) stages.

Plate 3. Changes in optimal corn planting date (a) and simulated corn
yield (b): 1990s versus the 1960s. (a) Using a process-based crop
model, Kucharik (in preparation) demonstrated that the optimal
planting date (defined by climatic parameters) for corn has shifted
substantially earlier since the 1960s in a large portion of the basin.
These earlier spring optimal planting dates may lead to increases
in yield. (b) Kucharik also illustrated that corn yield may have under-
gone substantial changes between the 1960s and the 1990s. In this
study, modeling results suggest that earlier springtime planting dates
(made possible by warmer springtime temperatures) can lead to
increasing yield. This may be an “indirect” response of corn yield
to climate, as it acts largely through the springtime planting date
(and a farmer decision), rather than directly through temperature
effects on crop photosynthesis.

Plate 4. Patterns of fertilizer use and nitrate leaching across the

Mississippi Basin. Donner et al. [submitted, 2004] used a process-
based terrestrial ecosystem model, combined with climate and fer-
tilizer application data, to estimate the rates of nitrate leaching in the
Mississippi Basin. Interestingly, the rates of leaching are dependent
on fertilizer application (top panel), plus characteristics of rainfall,
soil texture, and crop selection [Donner et al., submitted, 2004).
256 LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI
quality of water (see Eshelman, this volume). In fact, land
use and land cover change may significantly affect the avail-
ability and chemistry of surface and ground waters on conti-
nental scales, ultimately contributing to changes of aquatic
and coastal ecosystems [Turner and Rabalais, 1994; Vörös-
marty et al., 1997; Frink et al., 1999; Goolsby, 2001; Coe
and Foley, 2001, Donner and Kucharik, 2003]. However, we
still do not fully understand how the complex interactions
among land cover, land use, and climate have contributed to
changes in water flows and the dynamics of large watersheds.
Land cover and land use changes may affect the seasonal
variability and magnitude of runoff and discharge through a
number of interconnected processes. Changes in vegetation
cover directly alter total evapotranspiration and hence runoff
through differences in the water requirements of different
plant communities. Additionally, changes in land cover and use
alter the rate at which water runs off the land surface and
infiltrates the soil column (e.g., through soil compaction, cre-
ation of impervious surfaces, straightening and lining of stream
channels, etc.) and how rapidly water is removed from the
soil column (e.g., through tiling and ditching of fields).
Observational studies of small watersheds (10s of km2) in
tropical, temperate, and boreal regions [as summarized in
Bosch and Hewlett, 1982; Bruijnzeel, 1990; Sahin and Hall,
1996] have shown that, in general, a decrease in vegetation den-
sity (e.g., from forest to grassland or crops) can be expected
to increase annual mean water yield and discharge, while an
increase in vegetation density tends to reduce water yield and
discharge, consistent with alterations to the total evapotran-
spiration and soil infiltration rates. Costa et al. [in press] con-
firmed this process in a very large tropical river basin (the
176,000 km 2 Tocantins River in Brazil), finding that an
increase from 30% to 50% of the land used for crops between
1960 and 1995 is coincident with a 25% increase in annual
mean discharge, despite no change in the mean precipitation.
Analyses in the Upper Mississippi River basin (draining
large portions of Minnesota and Wisconsin) suggest that the
conversion of the natural landscape to a crop, pasture, and
urban mosaic is partially responsible for an increase in the sea-
sonal variability and the magnitude of the annual mean runoff
and discharge in the late 20th century. For example, Knox
[2001] showed that the conversion of forests and grassland to
crops and pastures in the Upper Mississippi River basin is
consistent with changes in seasonal and annual mean dis-
charge rates of the tributaries and main stem of the Upper
Mississippi: conversion to croplands and pastures since Euro-
pean settlement has resulted in more rapid runoff from the
land surface and less soil infiltration and has also probably
contributed to an observed increase in the number of large
floods. Additionally, a number of studies [e.g., Chagnon and
Demissie, 1996] have shown that urbanization in the Upper
Mississippi during the late 20th century and the subsequent
channelization of streams that occurred may be largely respon-
sible for the observed increase in large flood frequency and
mean annual discharge in many of the tributaries of the Illi-
nois River system.
At the scale of the whole Mississippi Basin, Twine et al.
(pers. comm.) used a process-based land surface model, linked
to a spatially distributed hydrological routing model, to exam-
ine how changes in land use and land cover affect the hydrol-
ogy of the Mississippi Basin. In this study, the models were
used to simulate changes in water balance and river hydrology
across the Mississippi River Basin resulting from the con-
version of natural vegetation (pre-European settlement) to the
current mosaic of natural and agricultural landscapes that
includes significant areas of corn, soybeans, and winter wheat.
(Corn and soybeans—summer crops—are mainly grown in
the eastern half of the basin that was formerly deciduous for-
est and temperate savanna, while winter wheat is mainly grown
in the southern plains that were formerly grasslands.) Both
simulations were forced with the same climate so that effects
from land cover change were isolated.
The Twine et al. modeling results suggest that the effects
of land cover change on the water balance of the Missis-
sippi Basin are strongly dependent on the location in ques-
tion and on the particular land cover transition (e.g., from
forest to summer crops, or from grasslands to winter crops).
According to Twine et al., in the eastern part of the basin, con-
version from forests to summer crops causes significant
decreases in evapotranspiration in late spring, summer, and
early fall and corresponding increases in runoff and river
flow. The large rates of transpiration from trees are greatly
reduced upon conversion to summer crops. (Even though
crop transpiration rates may approach or exceed those of
trees, the crop-growing season is shorter.) The opposite
effects are found in the northern plains where grasslands
were replaced with summer crops. The residue layer of dor-
mant grasses is eliminated upon conversion to crops and the
bare crop fields evaporate more water than the former dor-
mant grass cover. Spring and summer evapotranspiration
increases and runoff and river flow decrease. Conversion of
grasslands to winter wheat in the southern plains causes sea-
son-dependent changes that eliminate any annual change.
(The spring growing season of the winter wheat causes
greater evapotranspiration rates in spring when natural grasses
are dormant, and lower evapotranspiration rates in summer
and fall after the winter wheat harvest.) Correspondingly,
total runoff decreases in spring and increases in summer
and fall.
The results from Twine et al. paint a more complex picture
of how land use and land cover change affect water balance and
river hydrology. The exact land cover transition is extremely

important, as is the particular geographic setting. Interest-
ingly, these land cover changes, integrated over the entire
basin, cause an annual increase in river flow (at the outlet of
the basin in Vicksburg, Mississippi) of roughly 2%.
Comparing the small-scale catchment hydrology studies to
the large-scale modeling analyses illustrates an important
point. The effects of land use and land cover change on hydrol-
ogy are strongly dependent on the scale, and geographic con-
text, of the place in question. For example, deforestation of
small watersheds in the wetter portions of the basin will typ-
ically lead to increasing runoff and river flow. However, con-
verting dry grassland regions (in the Northern Plains regions)
to a winter cropping system may actually lead to decreasing
runoff and river flow. Only by considering multiple land cover
transitions (e.g., from forest to corn, from grassland to win-
ter wheat) superimposed onto a large watershed with strong
climatic gradients do we see the rich, complex response of
the whole system.
5. HOW IS THE WATER QUALITY OF THE BASIN
CHANGING?
As the Mississippi Basin has become dominated more and
more by large-scale production agriculture, there have been
several important changes in water quality across the basin. A
particularly serious consequence of agricultural activities in
the Mississippi Basin is the increase in nutrient pollution,
both in the groundwater systems (where it poses a significant
human health threat) and in aquatic ecosystems (where it can
lead to eutrophication and hypoxia). The largest example is the
emergence of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico, which
has been tied to the flow of excess nitrate from the Mississippi
River system.
Nitrate export by the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mex-
ico almost tripled from 1955 to 1999, primarily due to a six-
fold increase in fertilizer application and an increase in runoff
[Goolsby et al., 2000; Goolsby and Battaglin, 2001; Donner
et al., 2002; Donner et al., submitted, 2004]. This has been
blamed for a major increase in the severity and extent of bot-
tom water hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico [Turner and Rabal-
ais, 1991; Turner and Rabalais, 1994; Rabalais et al., 1996],
which may contribute to increased benthic mortality and fish-
eries decline. In 2001, U.S. federal and state authorities
designed an action plan, using voluntary measures and exist-
ing laws, to reduce nitrate export by the Mississippi and
Atchafalaya Rivers by 20–40% by the year 2010, in hopes of
reducing the average size of the hypoxic zone [Mississippi
River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2001].
Several studies have clearly demonstrated how the increase
in nitrogen fertilizer application across the Mississippi Basin,
along with changes in cropland distribution and hydrology,
FOLEY ET AL. 257
fueled the increase in nitrate flux by the Mississippi River
[Goolsby and Battaglin, 2001; McIsaac et al., 2001; Donner
et al., 2002; Justic et al., 2003; Donner et al., submitted, 2004].
The increase in the rate of nitrogen fertilizer application
on the major crops, particularly corn, has left more nitrogen
in the soil available for leaching to rivers and streams across
the Mississippi Basin [Goolsby and Battaglin, 2001; Donner
et al., 2002; Donner et al., submitted, 2004]. Agricultural
research in the Mississippi Basin has demonstrated a non-lin-
ear relationship between nitrogen fertilizer use and nitrogen
losses from the soil [Randall and Mulla, 2001; Donner and
Kucharik, 2003; Kucharik and Brye, 2003]. Beyond a thresh-
old, the proportion of applied nitrogen leached from the soil
column (before it can be used by the crop) can increase expo-
nentially [Donner and Kucharik, 2003].
As the amount of nitrogen on the landscape across the Mis-
sissippi Basin increased, the leaching of very soluble nitrate
also became increasingly sensitive to climate and hydrology
[Donner et al., 2002; Donner and Kucharik, 2003]. As a result,
the increase in runoff across the Mississippi Basin from the
mid-1960s to the mid-1990s (Figure 2) may alone be respon-
sible for a quarter of the observed increase in nitrate export by
the Mississippi [Donner et al., 2002; Justic et al., 2003].
The increase in fertilizer application may also have influ-
enced the seasonality of nitrate export by the Mississippi
River. The annual peak in nitrate export has shifted by over a
month since the 1960s from late March or early April to mid-
May [Donner et al., submitted, 2004]. Most nitrogen fertilizer
application occurs at the time of planting in the spring [Padgitt
et al., 2001], often coinciding with the annual peak in sur-
face runoff. The leaching of recently applied fertilizer and
residual soil nitrate in April and early May in the central por-
tions of the Mississippi Basin likely fueled the large late spring
peaks in nitrate export during the 1990s [Donner et al., sub-
mitted, 2004]. Climate-influenced changes in planting dates
may further alter the seasonality of nitrate export by the Mis-
sissippi in the future.
Today, highly fertilized croplands in the central Corn Belt
and along the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers now act
as “hot spots” of nitrate leaching, particularly during the late
spring [Donner et al., submitted, 2004; Plate 4]. The relative
contribution of these croplands to the nitrate exported by the
Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico is even greater dur-
ing wet years due both to high leaching losses and reduced in-
stream retention [Donner et al., submitted, 2004]. The removal
of in-stream nitrate via processes like denitrification depends
on the opportunity for nitrate to diffuse into aquatic sediments
and, therefore, tends to be inversely related to water residence
time [Peterson et al., 2001; Seitzinger et al., 2002]. Conse-
quently, nitrate leached from croplands adjacent to higher-
order rivers, and during periods of high river discharge, is
258 LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI

Figure 2. Simulated and observed changes in nitrate flux in the Mississippi River, 1960 to 1995. There has been a dra-
matic increase in the nitrate flux from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico during the last several decades. Here
we show three different estimates of this flux: one from river flow and nitrate concentrate measurements (USGS estimates),
and two from computer model simulations of Donner et al. [submitted, 2004].

more likely to be transported to the Gulf of Mexico [Donner
et al., submitted, 2004]. This further demonstrates how the
application of fertilizers, the distribution of croplands, and
patterns of climate can all influence the biogeochemical cycles
of nitrogen and other nutrients.
6. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED SO FAR?
In this chapter, we have considered how land use and land
cover change can affect the timing and geographic distribution
of different ecosystem goods and services across the Missis-
sippi Basin. In order to address these issues, we have had to
consider some of the relationships between the atmosphere, ter-
restrial ecosystems, and aquatic systems—at scales ranging
from individual fields all the way to the entire basin. A syn-
thesis of observations, combined with hypothesis-testing mod-
eling frameworks, can provide some important insights into
these issues.
We have noted several important factors that shape the flow
of ecosystem goods and services in the Mississippi region:
• The basin is heavily dominated by agriculture. During
the last few decades, cropping systems have become less
diverse and are now strongly dominated by corn, soy-
beans, and wheat. Soybeans have seen the largest increase
in cultivated area in the last few decades. Fertilizer inputs
(especially nitrogen) have also increased dramatically.
• Crop yields have increased substantially during the last few
decades. Most of this increase appears to result from
changing management practices, especially increasing
fertilizer inputs and irrigation. However, a substantial
portion of the crop yield increase appears to be related to
changing climatic patterns over the basin. Several sources
of evidence now suggest an earlier springtime (from the
1960s to the 1990s) may be affecting agricultural sys-
tems, largely through changes in farmer management
(especially planting dates)—not directly on the crops
themselves. There has also been an important change in
crop yield variability: In much of the basin, variability
has been increasing since the 1950s, even though cli-
matic variability has not changed appreciably.
• The hydrology of the basin has also seen significant fluc-
tuations during the last several decades, mainly driven
by variations in climate. On smaller spatial scales, the
impacts of land use/land cover change can introduce very
large impacts on runoff and river flow. Analyses suggest
that the effects of land cover change on water balance
and hydrology is strongly dependent on the land cover
transition (e.g., from forest to summer crops versus from
grassland to winter crop) in question and the underlying
climate.
• There has been a significant deterioration in water qual-
ity across the basin, especially in terms of nitrate con-
centrations of groundwater, surface water, and river flows.
A major increase in nitrate outflows from the Mississippi
is largely responsible for the hypoxic “dead zone” in the
Gulf of Mexico. Spatial patterns of climate (especially
precipitation and precipitation variability), soil texture,
and fertilizer application work together to produce “hot
spots” of nitrogen leaching, which have a disproportional
impact on the flow of nitrate into the Mississippi river
system.
This chapter has reviewed how changes in climate and land
use/land cover can exert strong influences on the natural

resources of the Mississippi Basin. Further study of how envi-
ronmental changes can affect natural resources across this
region must consider the following:
1. Assessing the impact of land use/land cover change and
shifting environmental conditions (e.g., climate, atmos-
pheric composition) on natural resources must consider
multiple ecosystem goods and services simultaneously.
Considering only one resource at a time—for example,
food production or water quality—will not illuminate the
strong cross-linkages occurring across these sectors.
2. There may be important tradeoffs between and among
ecosystem goods and services. For example, in the Mis-
sissippi Basin we have seen a tremendous increase in
food production (a positive increase in an important
ecosystem service), while simultaneously we have seen
degrading water quality, natural habitats, and biological
diversity (a decline in ecosystem goods and services).
Examining the tradeoffs between ecosystem goods and
services, and how they are affected by land use man-
agement decisions, is a highly relevant contribution to
policy- and decision-making.
3. Developing an analytical framework for exploring the
tradeoffs among ecosystem goods and services, and
how these change in response to environmental and land
use changes, is an important goal. Such a framework
must be able to consider multiple ecosystem goods and
services simultaneously and address how they change in
response to multiple, potentially interacting, environ-
mental and human drivers. Furthermore, such a frame-
work must consider a range of spatial and temporal
scales—all the way from the individual farmer’s field on
a given year to decadal-scale variations across the con-
tinental-scale basin.
Additional research efforts should consider the impacts of
land use and land cover change on the flow of ecosystem goods
and services in many different regions of the world. While a
great deal of effort has been focused on the impacts of cli-
mate change on ecosystems and natural resources, relatively lit-
tle has concentrated on the effects of land use/land cover
change. This is somewhat surprising, since land use is also a
major driver of global environmental change and is arguably
the dominant force shaping the global environment today.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Ruth DeFries,
Greg Asner and the Ame rican Geophysical Union for putting together
an extremely stimulating Chapman Conference on this very impor-
tant topic. We would also like to thank Mary Sternitzky, Navin
Ramankutty, and Kate Flick for their help with the manuscript and
figures.
FOLEY ET AL. 259
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. B., and R. A. Smith, County-Level Estimates of Nitro-
gen and Phosphorus Fertilizer Use in the United States, 1945 to
1985, USGS Open-File Report 90–130, Reston, Virginia, 1990.
Baldwin, C. K., and U. Lall, Seasonality of streamflow: The upper Mis-
sissippi River, Water Resources Research, 35, 1143–1154, 1999.
Battaglin, W. A., and D. A. Goolsby, Spatial Data in GIS format on
agricultural chemical use, land use and cropping practices in the
United States, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investi-
gations Report 94–4176, 1996. (Available on-line at
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/)
Bosch, J. M. and J. D. Hewlett, A review of catchment experiments
to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and
evapotranspiration, J. Hydrolo., 55, 3–23, 1982.
Bradley, N. L., A. C. Leopold, J. Ross, and W. Huffaker, Phenolog-
ical changes reflect climate change in Wisconsin, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci., 96, 9701–9704, 1999.
Bruijnzeel, L. A., Hydrology of moist forests and the effects of con-
version: a state of knowledge review, UNESCO—Int. Inst. for
Aerospace Survey and Earth Science, Publication of the Humid
Tropics Programme, Free University, Amsterdam, 224 pp., 1990.
Chagnon, S. A., and M. Demissie, Detection of changes in stream-
flow and floods resulting from climate fluctuation and land use-
drainage changes, Clim. Change, 32, 411–421, 1996.
Coe, M. T. and J. A. Foley, Human and natural impacts on the water
resources of the Lake Chad basin, J. of Geophys. Res. (Atmos-
pheres), 106 (D4), 3349–3356, 2001.
Costa, M. H., A. Botta and J. Cardille, Effects of large-scale change
in land cover on the discharge of the Tocantins River, Amazonia,
J. of Hydrolo., submitted, 2004.
Darmody, R. G., and T. R. Peck, Soil organic carbon changes through
time at the University of Illinois Morrow plots, pp. 161–170, in
E.A. Paul, K. Paustian, E.T. Elliott and C.V. Cole, editors, Soil
organic matter in temperate agroecosystems, long term experi-
ments in North America, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 1997.
DeFries, R., G. Asner, and R. Houghton, Land use change and ecosys-
tem services, this volume.
Donner, S. D., J. A. Foley, and C. J. Kucharik, The impact of chang-
ing land use practices on nitrate export by the Mississippi River,
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, submittted, 2004, under review.
Donner, S. D. and C. J. Kucharik, Evaluating the impacts of land
management and climate variability on crop production and nitrate
export across the Upper Mississippi Basin, Global Biogeochem-
ical Cycles, 17(3) 1085, doi:10.1029/2001GB001808, 2003.
Donner, S. D., The distribution of the primary crops in the U.S. since
1950 and the relationship to river nutrient levels, Global Ecology
and Biogeography, 12, 341–355, 2003.
Donner, S. D., M. Coe, J. Lenters, T. E. Twine, and J. A. Foley, Mod-
eling the impact of hydrology on nitrate transport in the Mississippi
River System from 1955–1994, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16,
3, 10.1029/2001GB001396, 2002.
Duvick, D. N., and K. G. Cassman, Post-green revolution trends in
yield potential of temperate maize in the North–Central United
States, Crop Science, 39, 1622–1630, 1999.
260 LAND USE IN THE MISSISSIPPI
Frink, C. R., P. E. Waggoner, and J. H. Ausubel, Nitrogen Fertilizer:
Retrospect and Prospect, Proceedings, National Academy of Sci-
ences, 96, 1175–1180, 1999.
Goolsby, D. A., W. A. Battaglin, and G. B. Lawrence, Flux and
sources of nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River basin:
Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico, NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analy-
sis Series No. 17, 130 pp., NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver
Spring, MD, 1999.
Goolsby, D. A., W. A. Battaglin, B. T. Aulenbach, and R. P. Hooper,
Nitrogen flux and sources in the Mississippi River Basin, Sci.
Total Environ., 248(2–3) 75–86, 2000.
Goolsby, D. A., and W. A. Battaglin, Long-term changes in concen-
trations and flux of nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin, USA,
Hydrological Processes, 15, 1209–1226, 2001.
Hurtt, G. C., L. Rosentrater, S. Frolking, and B. Moore, Linking
remote-sensing estimates of land cover and census statistics on
land use to produce maps of land use of the conterminous United
States, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15, 673–685, 2001.
Jaynes, D. B., T. S. Colvin, D. L. Karlen, C. A. Cambardella, and D.
W. Meek, Nitrate loss in subsurface drainage as affected by nitro-
gen fertilizer rate, J. Environ. Qual., 30, 1305–1314, 2001.
Justic, D., R. E. Turner, and N. N. Rabalais, Climatic influences on
riverine nitrate flux: Implications for coastal marine eutrophica-
tion and hypoxia, Estuaries, 26, 1–11, 2003.
Knox, J. C., Agricultural influence on landscape sensitivity in the
Upper Mississippi River Valley, Catena, 42, 193–224, 2001.
Kucharik, C. J., K. R. Brye, J. M. Norman, J. A. Foley, S. T. Gower,
and L. G. Bundy, Measurements and modeling of carbon and
nitrogen cycling in agroecosystems of southern Wisconsin: Poten-
tial for SOC sequestration during the next 50 years, Ecosystems,
4, 237–258, 2001.
Kucharik, C. J., and K. R. Brye, IBIS yield and nitrate leaching pre-
dictions for Wisconsin maize agroecosystems receiving varied N-
fertilizer, J. Env. Qual., 32, 247–268, 2003.
Kucharik, C. J., Evaluation of a process-based agro-ecosystem model
(Agro-IBIS) across the U.S. Cornbelt: Simulations of the inter-
annual variability in maize yield, Earth Interactions, in press,
2004.
Lettenmaier, D. P., E. F. Wood, and J. R. Wallis, Hydroclimatologi-
cal trends in the continental United States, 1948–1988, J. Clim.,
7, 586–607, 1994.
Lins, H. F., and J. R. Slack, Streamflow trends in the United States,
Geophys. Res. Letters, 26, 227–230, 1999.
Lobell, D. B., and G. P. Asner, Climate and management contributions
to recent trends in U.S. agricultural yields, Science, 299, 1032,
2003a.
Lobell, D. B., and G. P. Asner, Response to comment on “Climate and
management contributions to recent trends in U.S. agricultural
yields,” Science, 300, 1505c, 2003b.
Mann, L. K., Changes in carbon storage after cultivation, Soil Science,
142, 279–288, 1986.
McIsaac, G. F., M. B. David, G. Z. Gertner, and D. A. Goolsby,
Eutrophication—Nitrate flux in the Mississippi river, Nature, 414,
166–167, 2001.
Menzel, A., and P. Fabian, Growing season extended in Europe,
Nature, 397, 659, 1999.
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force,
Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in
the Northern Gulf of Mexico, Washington, D.C., 2001. Available
on-line at http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/action plan.htm.
Myneni, R. B., C. D. Keeling, C. J. Tucker, G. Asrar, and R. R.
Nemani, Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes
from 1981–1991, Nature, 386, 698–702, 1997.
Naylor, R., W. Falcon, and E. Zavaleta, Variability and growth in
grain yields, 1950–94: Does the record point to greater instabil-
ity?, Population and Development Review, 23, 1, 41–58, 1997.
Padgitt, M., D. Newton, R. Penn, and C. Sandretto, Production Prac-
tices for Major Crops in U.S. Agriculture, 1990–97, Resource
Economic Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Statistical Bulletin No. 969, 2001.
Paustian, K., H. P. Collins, and E. A. Paul, Management controls on
soil carbon in Soil organic matter in temperate agroecosystems,
long term experiments in North America, pp. 15–49 in E. A. Paul,
K. Paustian, E. T. Elliott and C. V. Cole, editors, Soil organic mat-
ter in temperate agroecosystems, long term experiments in North
America, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 1997.
Peterson, B. J., W. M. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, W. Jr., J. L. Meyer,
J. L. Tank, E. Marti, W. B. Bowden, H. M. Valett, A. E. Hershey,
W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and
D. D. Morall, Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by head-
water streams, Science, 292, 86–89, 2001.
Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, W. Wiseman, J,
Jr,, and B. K. Sen Gupta, Nutrient changes in the Mississippi River
and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf, Estuaries,
19, 366–407, 1996.
Ramankutty, N., and J. A. Foley, Characterizing patterns of global land
use: An analysis of global croplands data, Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 12, 667–685, 1998.
Ramankutty, N., and J. A. Foley, Estimating historical changes in
land cover: North American croplands from 1850 to 1992, Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 8, 381–396, 1999.
Ramankutty, N., J. A. Foley, J. Norman, and K. McSweeney, The
global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sen-
sitivity to possible climate change, Global Ecology and Biogeog-
raphy, 11, 377–392, 2002.
Randall, G. W. and D. J. Mulla, Nitrate nitrogen in surface waters as
influenced by climatic conditions and agricultural practices, J.
Environ. Qual., 30, 337–344, 2001.
Robeson, S. M., Increasing growing-season length in Illinois during
the 20th century, Climatic Change, 52, 219–238, 2002.
Sahin, V., and M. J. Hall, The effects of afforestation and deforesta-
tion on water yields, J. Hydrology, 178, 293–309, 1996.
Schwartz, M. D., and B. E. Reiter, Changes in North American
spring. Int. J. Climatol., 20, 929–932, 2000.
Seitzinger, S. P., R. V. Styles, E. W. Boyer, R. B. Alexander, G.
Billen, R. W. Howarth, B. Mayer, and N. Van Breemen, Nitro-
gen retention in rivers: model development and application to
watersheds in the northeastern U.S.A., Biogeochemistry, 57/58,
199–237, 2002.

Shepard, R., Nitrogen and phosphorus management on Wisconsin
farms: Lessons learned for 25 agricultural water quality programs,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55, 1, 63–68, 2000.
Thompson, L. M., Climatic change, weather variability, and corn
production, Agron. J., 78, 649–653, 1986.
Thompson, L. M., Effects of changes in climate and weather vari-
ability on the yields of corn and soybeans, J. Prod. Agric., 1,
20–27, 1988.
Turner, R. E., and N. N. Rabalais, Changes in Mississippi River
Water-Quality This Century, Bioscience, 41, 3, 140–147, 1991.
Turner, R. E., and N. N. Rabalais, Coastal eutrophication near the Mis-
sissippi river delta, Nature, 368, 1994.
USDA, Fertilizer Use and Price, 1960–93, Statistical Bulletin No.
893, Economic Research Service, Natural Resources and Envi-
ronment Division, USDA, Washington, DC, 1994.
USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service Historical Data, 2003.
FOLEY ET AL. 261
Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/.
Vörösmarty C. J., M. Meybeck, B. Fekete, and K. Sharma, The poten-
tial impact of neo-Castorization on sediment transport by the
global network of rivers, in: Human impact on erosion and sedi-
mentation (Proceedings of the Rabat Symposium, April 1997)
IAHS Publ., no. 245, 1997.
Wang, G., and E. A. B. Eltahir, Ecosystem Dynamics and the Sahel
Drought, GRL, 27, 795–798, 2000.
M. T. Coe, J. A. Foley, C. J. Kucharik, and T. E. Twine, Center for
Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), University of
Wisconsin, 1710 University Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53726.
(jfoley@wisc.edu)
S. D. Donner, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Interna-
tional Affairs, Princeton University, 402 Robertson Hall, Princeton,
New Jersey 08544.