GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L20502, doi:10.
1029/2004GL020927, 2004
Spatiotemporal patterns of cropland area and net primary production
in the central United States estimated from USDA agricultural
information
Jeffrey A. Hicke
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
David B. Lobell
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA
Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Received 5 July 2004; accepted 15 September 2004; published 22 October 2004.
[1] The central United States, which is dominated by
agriculture, has been selected as the first North American
Carbon Program intensive campaign. Data sets that describe
spatiotemporal variability in carbon fluxes are needed to
support this campaign. Here we report the behavior of
county cropland net primary production (NPP) in the first
intensive region derived using USDA information together
with crop-specific parameters that convert agronomic data
into carbon fluxes. Total cropland area in the eight-state
region was
550,000 km2 (40% of total area), with some
interannual variability but no temporal trend from 1972 to
2001. Regional production (P) was 0.3 Pg C yr1 in the
late 1990s, roughly 64% of the total US crop production.
P was highest in the central counties (>1.2 Tg C yr1). In
contrast to area, both NPP (flux per unit area) and P
(spatially aggregated flux) increased during the study period
(46 and 51%, respectively). Corn was the dominant crop
type grown in the region, contributing 58% of the total
production, with soybeans second most productive but
substantially less (20%) despite similar harvested area.
Maximum year-to-year variability in P was high, generally
greater than 30% for most counties, though exceeding 80%
for some counties. INDEX TERMS: 0315 Atmospheric
Composition and Structure: Biosphere/atmosphere interactions;
0322 Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Constituent
sources and sinks; 1615 Global Change: Biogeochemical
processes (4805) Citation: Hicke, J. A., and D. B. Lobell
(2004), Spatiotemporal patterns of cropland area and net primary
production in the central United States estimated from USDA
agricultural information, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L20502,
doi:10.1029/2004GL020927.
1. Introduction
[2] In the central United States, croplands are important
components of the carbon (C) cycling. Extensive area
within this region is cultivated (some counties exceed
75% cropland area [Lobell et al., 2002; Prince et al.,
2001]), and production is comparable to surrounding wood-
lands [Prince et al., 2001]. Yields and therefore C uptake in
crops have increased over time [Hicke et al., 2004; U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1997a; USDA, 2001]
Copyright 2004 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/04/2004GL020927
L20502
(see http://www.nass.usda.gov/census and http://www.nass.
usda.gov:81/ipedb, respectively), and croplands can be
intensively managed to enhance net C uptake [e.g., Ogle
et al., 2003; Paustian et al., 1997]. The flat topography and
knowledge of climate, soils, and land-use history facilitates
C flux measurements and modeling. For these reasons, the
first intensive campaign of the North American Carbon
Program (NACP) [Wofsy and Harriss, 2002] will occur in
the upper Midwest region of the United States. The ‘‘Mid-
Continent NCAP Intensive Campaign’’ includes South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Illinois (www.carboncyclescience.gov/
nacp-first-intensive-campaign.html). The campaign will
develop and test key approaches for reconciling estimates
of regional C sources and sinks derived from atmospheric
measurements with those from other methods, including
inventories, remote sensing, and field measurements.
[3] One source of C flux information is the USDA
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) [USDA,
2001] database of crop information. Annually, NASS
reports cropland area and yield by county across the US
for different crop types based on surveys and inventories of
farms. Cropland information is available back to the early
1900s, although the most complete reporting began around
1970. Patterns and trends can be studied with the agronomic
data reported by NASS, though these analyses are limited in
usefulness with respect to the C cycle for several reasons.
First, agronomic units (e.g., ‘‘bushels’’) cannot be included
in C cycle studies without conversion to biomass units (g C).
Second, top-down studies of C fluxes, such as aircraft and
tower measurements, require net fluxes. Therefore, values
from all crop types must be combined to determine the total
effect across crop types. To study cropland C fluxes,
reported yields can be converted to production by utilizing
harvest indices, moisture content variables, and other
parameters to compute NPP [Lobell et al., 2002; Prince et
al., 2001].
[4] NASS data were used by Prince et al. [2001] to
investigate NPP of major crop types in the Midwest for
1992, and for 1982 – 1996 for Iowa. The authors found that
the areas with the highest NPP were associated with corn
and soybeans. In Iowa, NPP over the 15 years varied by
100%. Lobell et al. [2002] found good agreement between
NPP estimated with a similar approach and that computed
using satellite observations during 1982 – 1998. Hicke et al.
1 of 5
L20502 HICKE AND LOBELL: CROPLAND NPP IN THE CENTRAL US L20502

Table 1. Parameters Used for Converting Yields to Production for tantly, hay. Here we analyze NPP from only crop types
the 17 Crops Used in this Study for which all years were complete (as opposed to all
Mass per Moisture Harvest Fraction of available information). Incomplete cropland information
Reported Yield Content Index Production Allocated was reported for South Dakota and southern and eastern
a b c
Crop (MRY) (MC), % (HI) Aboveground (fAG) Iowa. Although including all available crop information will
Corn for grain 25.401 11 0.45 0.85d give a more complete picture in some years, doing so would
Soybeans 27.216 10 0.40 0.87d have introduced spurious errors to trend and interannual
Wheat, winter 27.216 11 0.40 0.83d variability calculations that resulted from simply incomplete
Hay, other 907.000 15 1.00 0.53d
Hay, alfalfa 907.000 15 1.00 0.53d reporting as opposed to actual changes in agricultural
Wheat, spring 27.216 11 0.40 0.83d numbers. See Hicke et al. [2004] and Lobell et al. [2002]
Cotton upland 217.700 8 0.40 0.80e for additional details of the processing.
Sorghum for grain 25.401 10 0.40 0.80e [8] In this paper, we refer to ‘‘NPP’’ as having units of
Barley 21.772 12 0.40 0.67d
Corn for silage 907.000 65 1.00 0.85d
g C m2 yr1, whereas ‘‘production’’ has units of g C yr1
Wheat durum 27.216 12 0.40 0.83d (i.e., production is spatially aggregated NPP). To compute
Rice 50.800 9 0.40 0.80e NPP, we divide P by the crop area A.
Sunflower seed 0.453 10 0.35 0.94d
Oats 14.515 11 0.40 0.71d
Peanuts 0.453 9 0.40 0.80e 3. Results and Discussion
Potatoes 50.800 80 0.50 0.80e
Sugarbeets 907.000 85 0.40 0.80e [9] Mean cropland P (across years) for the eight-state
a
USDA [1997b].
region is 0.31 Pg C yr1, about two-thirds of the total US
b
NRC [1982]. cropland production [Hicke et al., 2004] and
11% of the
c
Hay [1995]. total coterminous US NPP [Hicke et al., 2002]. Production
d
Prince et al. [2001]. patterns were similar to cropland area patterns, with highest
e
Lobell et al. [2002]. values in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska (Figure 1).
A few counties had extremely high values, >1.2 Tg C yr1,
[2004] discussed nationwide cropland area and production whereas in many of the remaining counties with substantial
trends derived with NASS information over thirty years. cropland area, P ranged from 0.4– 1.2 Tg C yr1.
Although overall US cropland area changed little and [10] Regional cropland area averaged about 550,000 km2
production increased dramatically during this time, substan- (Figure 2), or 40% of the eight-state region. County crop-
tial spatial variability existed in the trends. land areas ranged from near zero in the forested regions of
[5] Here we present detailed cropland production infor- Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri to over 80% in south-
mation for the eight-state region encompassing the first ern Minnesota, Iowa, southeastern South Dakota, eastern
NACP intensive campaign. Spatial patterns of production Nebraska, and Illinois [see also Lobell et al., 2002; Prince et
and year-to-year variability across the NCAP first intensive al., 2001]. Little trend is evident over the 30-year study
area are analyzed. We discuss year-to-year variability and period, though year-to-year variations of 100,000 km2, or
the contribution by different crop types from 1972– 2001. nearly 20% of the mean, occurred. Similar behavior from
1982– 1997 (no change or slight decrease) was reported in
the region by the USDA National Resources Inventory, an
2. Methods independent statistical survey conducted every five years by
the National Resources Conservation Service [USDA
[6] NASS harvested area and yield in agronomic units NRCS, 1997] (see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/
were reported annually by county [USDA, 2001]. For 1997). The lack of a trend suggests that all land potentially
an individual county and crop type, we converted yields
(PC) to production P (g C yr1) using the following
equation:

PC  MRY  ð1  MC Þ  C
P¼ : ð1Þ
HI  fAG

MRY is the mass per reported yield, and MC is the harvest

moisture content (mass water/mass harvest, g/g). C
(=0.45 gC/g) converts mass to carbon. The harvest index
HI specifies the ratio of yield mass to aboveground biomass,
and fAG is the fraction of production allocated aboveground,
and is directly related to the root:shoot ratio. The numerator
of equation (1) converts reported yields to C of the
harvested plant part; the denominator accounts for addi-
tional aboveground plant parts (HI) and belowground
production (fAG). MRY, MC, HI, and fAG vary by crop type
and were taken from published values (Table 1).
[7] We selected the 17 crops with the largest areas
(>1 million acres) for analysis. Some of these crop types
were incompletely reported for some years, most impor- Figure 1. Cropland production in 2001 (Tg C yr1).

2 of 5
L20502 HICKE AND LOBELL: CROPLAND NPP IN THE CENTRAL US
Figure 2. Time series of (a) cropland area, (b) NPP (g C
m2 yr1), and (c) production (Pg C yr1) aggregated for
the eight-state region showed in Figure 1.
available for agriculture was converted before 1972. Inter-
annual variations in area were likely due to climate and/or
economic drivers.
[11] NPP and P show similar year-to-year variability,
both in magnitude and phase. However, in contrast to area,
the C fluxes increased substantially from 1972– 2001. Over
the thirty-year study period, NPP averaged 470 g C m2
yr1, increasing 46% from 380 to 550 g C m2 yr1. Mean
production was 0.26 Pg C yr1, increasing 51% from 0.2 to
0.3 Pg C yr1. Possible drivers of long-term increased NPP
in the region include improved cultivars, better fertilizer and
pest management, more favorable climate, shifts to produc-
tive crop types, and economic influences [Duvick and
Cassman, 1999; Evans, 1997; Lobell and Asner, 2003].
Similar to cropland area, several of these factors could drive
interannual variations, including climate and economics.
[12] Particularly low flux values occurred in 1983, 1988,
and 1993, years following large El Niño events. The effect
of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on crop yields
in the US has been noted previously from analysis of yields
[e.g., Phillips et al., 1999], model results [e.g., Izaurralde et
al., 1999; Legler et al., 1999], and remote sensing [e.g.,
Wannebo and Rosenzweig, 2003]. Despite the apparent
3 of 5
L20502
effect on yields in years following El Niño events derived
in this study, past studies have reported a higher correlation
of yields with ENSO indices during years prior to ENSO
events [Phillips et al., 1999; Wannebo and Rosenzweig,
2003]. Prince et al. [2001] suggested that different mech-
anisms drove low Iowa NPP in 1983, 1988, and 1993 (a wet
spring coupled with management changes, a summer
drought, and flooding, respectively). Future studies are
needed to explore forcing mechanisms in more detail.
[13] Corn accounted for 35% of the 2001 cropland area in
the region and 58% of the production, and corn production
increased rapidly during the time period of interest
(Figure 3). Soybeans were the second most productive crop,
with 20% of the total regional P occurring on 34% of the
cropland area. Wheat, hay (only counties with complete
reporting), and sorghum each contributed <10%, and
other crops contributed only minor amounts. As evident
in Figure 3, the fraction of production attributable to
individual crops varies by year, which may have implica-
tions for the seasonal timing of C uptake based on pheno-
logical differences between crops.
[14] Characterizing the interannual variability of C fluxes
is important for interpreting the results of the NACP
intensive campaign. The regional time series (Figures 2
and 3) demonstrate the high degree of temporal variability
in area, NPP, and production. The coefficient of variability
(COV; standard deviation of detrended values divided by
the mean) for regional production was 0.13. The maximum
year-to-year change in production was 40% of the mean and
occurred in 1993 –1994. The COV of corn was 0.24, and for
soybeans was 0.30. Maximum year-to-year variability of
regional corn production was 80 Tg C yr1 (57%), while
soybean production varied by 15.4 Tg C yr1 (40%), both
occurring in 1993 – 1994. Negative deviations from the
detrended mean were fewer and larger than positive devia-
tions in all three variables (A, NPP, P). Approximately one-
third of the years had negative deviations, but the mean of
these deviations was twice that of the positive deviations.
[15] The map of maximum year-to-year P variability
reveals that many counties exceeded 50% variability, with
values 80% in some counties (Figure 4). A few counties
Figure 3. Cropland production (Tg C yr1) for the eight-
state region by crop type for the five most productive crops.
L20502 HICKE AND LOBELL: CROPLAND NPP IN THE CENTRAL US
Figure 4. Maximum year-to-year variability (for thirty
years, 1972 – 2001) in production (as percentage of mean
production).
may be artificially high since we analyzed only crop types
with complete reporting and so may have missed shifting
production associated with, for example, hay. However,
high variability also occurred in counties without missing
data. Irrigation provides a buffer against year-to-year vari-
ability associated with droughts. As an example, irrigated
corn in central Nebraska produced large NPP but with low
variability.
4. Conclusions
[16] We estimated county-level NPP from cropland area
and harvested yields reported by the USDA NASS for
1972 – 2001 in the eight-state region of the first NACP
intensive campaign. We found that cropland area remained
constant over the 30-year study period, with some interan-
nual variability. NPP over that time increased by roughly
50%, and was also subject to large year-to-year variability.
Total regional production was two-thirds and 11% of the
conterminous US cropland and total production, respectively,
with large year-to-year variability, in some cases exceeding
80% of the mean. Negative deviations were less frequent and
larger than positive deviations, suggesting that drivers of
interannual variability that reduced yields, such as flooding,
had a strong influence on production. Corn dominated
production values. Despite a similar harvest area, soybeans,
the second most productive crop, accounted for only 20% of
the regional production.
[17] Our cropland NPP is useful to the NACP Mid-
Continent Intensive Campaign in several ways. The analysis
of spatiotemporal patterns of NPP improves our understand-
ing of C cycling in the region. In addition, cropland NPP
provides estimates of C inputs to C cycle models and
provides a means of validating model outputs. Finally, the
NPP based on surveys and inventories allows for compar-
isons with other spatially extensive observations such as
remotely sensed data [e.g., Lobell et al., 2002].
[18] Although this data set is a useful resource for
reconciling top-down and bottom-up estimates of regional
C cycling, several issues prevent it from completely char-
4 of 5
L20502
acterizing C uptake in the Midwest. First, although crop-
lands are dominant across the region, other land cover types
are present in the area, including grasslands and forest,
and must be considered when evaluating fluxes. Second,
harvested yields sometimes result in underreporting
of annual production. For example, Lobell et al. [2002]
discussed severe weed problems and flooding in the late
growing season in the Midwest that resulted in deviations
between satellite- and NASS-derived NPP. Third, the coarse
spatial (county) and temporal (annual) scales of this data set
imply that additional methods must be developed to capture
finer scales that will be necessary for analysis within the
context of the NACP. Fourth, the surveys and inventories
performed by NASS at annual timescales require some
subsampling, conferring some uncertainty to the estimates
(95% confidence intervals for 2s uncertainty are estimated
for the most productive crops to be 5 – 10% [USDA, 2001]).
Improved accuracy can be achieved by integrating Census
of Agriculture data [USDA, 1997a], more complete but
available only every five years, with the NASS information.
[ 19 ] The cropland database is available online at
www.nrel.colostate.edu/~jhicke/usda_croplands/usda_
cropland_npp.php.
[20] Acknowledgments. We thank Mark Easter, Steve Williams, and
Keith Paustian for assistance with the NASS database, and Dennis Ojima
for his support. We are grateful to Rich Conant and Robert Harriss for their
comments and reviews. This research was partially funded by NASA IDS
grant NNG04GH63G.
References
Duvick, D. N., and K. G. Cassman (1999), Post-green revolution trends in
yield potential of temperate maize in the north-central United States,
Crop Sci., 39, 1622 – 1630.
Evans, L. T. (1997), Adapting and improving crops: The endless task,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 352, 901 – 906.
Hay, R. K. M. (1995), Harvest index—A review of its use in plant-breeding
and crop physiology, Ann. Appl. Biol., 126, 197 – 216.
Hicke, J. A., G. P. Asner, J. T. Randerson et al. (2002), Satellite-derived
increases in net primary productivity across North America, 1982 – 1998,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(10), 1427, doi:10.1029/2001GL013578.
Hicke, J. A., D. B. Lobell, and G. P. Asner (2004), Cropland area and net
primary production computed from 30 years of USDA agricultural har-
vest data, Earth Interact., 8, 1 – 20.
Izaurralde, R. C., N. J. Rosenberg, R. A. Brown et al. (1999), Modeled
effects of moderate and strong ‘Los Ninos’ on crop productivity in North
America, Agric. For. Meteorol., 94, 259 – 268.
Legler, D. M., K. J. Bryant, and J. J. O’Brien (1999), Impact of ENSO-
related climate anomalies on crop yields in the US, Clim. Change, 42,
351 – 375.
Lobell, D. B., and G. P. Asner (2003), Climate and management contri-
butions to recent trends in US agricultural yields, Science, 299, 1032 –
1032.
Lobell, D. B., J. A. Hicke, G. P. Asner et al. (2002), Satellite estimates of
productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982 –
1998, Global Change Biol., 8, 1 – 15.
National Research Council (NRC) (1982), United States – Canadian Tables
of Feed Composition, Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D. C.
Ogle, S. M., F. J. Breidt, M. D. Eve, and K. Paustian (2003), Uncertainty in
estimating land use and management impacts on soil organic carbon
storage for US agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997, Global Change
Biol., 9, 1521 – 1542.
Paustian, K., H. P. Collins, and E. A. Paul (1997), Management controls on
soil carbon, in Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems, edited
by E. A. Paul et al., pp. 15 – 49, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Phillips, J., B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane, and C. Rosenzweig (1999), The role
of ENSO in determining climate and maize yield variability in the US
cornbelt, Int. J. Climatol., 19, 877 – 888.
Prince, S. D., J. Haskett, M. Steininger et al. (2001), Net primary produc-
tion of US Midwest croplands from agricultural harvest yield data, Ecol.
Appl., 11, 1194 – 1205.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1997a), Census of agriculture,
Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., Washington, D. C.
L20502 HICKE AND LOBELL: CROPLAND NPP IN THE CENTRAL US L20502

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1997b), Statistical bulletin
number 947a, Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., Washington, D. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2001), Published estimates
database, Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv., Washington, D. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS (1997), National resources
inventory, Washington, D. C.
Wannebo, A., and C. Rosenzweig (2003), Remote sensing of US cornbelt
areas sensitive to the El Nino – Southern Oscillation, Int. J. Remote Sens.,
24, 2055 – 2067.
Wofsy, S., and R. Harriss (2002), The North American Carbon Program
(NACP), report, U.S. Global Change Res. Prog., Washington, D. C.

J. A. Hicke, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. (jhicke@nrel.colorado.edu)
D. B. Lobell, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.

5 of 5