Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Glob Chang Biol . 2026 Apr 9;32(4):e70842. doi: 10.1111/gcb.70842 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Keeping Pace With Intensifying Agricultural Field Inundation Events: A Framework for Testing the Mitigative Capacity of Current Best Management Practices Christy Gibson Christy Gibson 1 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 2 Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Christy Gibson 1, 2, ✉ , Connor Sible Connor Sible 1 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Connor Sible 1 , Gerald Mashange Gerald Mashange 3 Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 4 Illinois Extension, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Gerald Mashange 3, 4 , Talon Becker Talon Becker 1 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 4 Illinois Extension, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Talon Becker 1, 4 , Doug Gucker Doug Gucker 4 Illinois Extension, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Doug Gucker 4 , Bin Peng Bin Peng 1 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 2 Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Bin Peng 1, 2 , Trent Ford Trent Ford 5 Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USA Find articles by Trent Ford 5 , Esther Ngumbi Esther Ngumbi 6 Department of Entomology, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA Find articles by Esther Ngumbi 6 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 2 Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 3 Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 4 Illinois Extension, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA 5 Illinois State Water Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USA 6 Department of Entomology, University of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA * Correspondence: Christy Gibson ( [email protected] ) ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2026 Mar 25; Received 2025 Nov 6; Accepted 2026 Mar 25; Issue date 2026 Apr. © 2026 The Author(s). Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13066769 PMID: 41958192 ABSTRACT According to data from the USDA's Risk Management Agency, crop insurance indemnities related to precipitation, hurricanes, excess moisture, and field inundation have totaled approximately $3.65 billion across Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa over the past decade. Of this amount, an estimated $924 million (25.31%) was attributed to losses that occurred in the spring months. Cover crops and conservation tillage have been recommended as best management practices to mitigate financial impacts by reducing nutrient losses from erosion, runoff, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, preventing disease and physical plant damage, and enhancing field access through improved landscape drainage. However, further intensification of field inundation events is projected in these three states as we approach the midcentury, which may lessen the mitigative capacity of these practices. Few studies have tested the resilience of these land management practices to intensifying field inundation. We propose a framework that integrates guiding research questions and field experiments to determine whether the mitigative capacity of cover crops and conservation tillage keeps pace with intensifying field inundation events. We also explore agricultural biologicals, precision agriculture, the introduction of perennial crops, and drainage management as measures to address inefficiencies associated with the mitigative capacity of cover crops and conservation tillage that may be identified during experimentation. This effort expands recommended best management practices and provides stakeholders with more options in an uncertain future due to climate change. Keywords: best management practices, conservation tillage, cover crops, extreme precipitation, field inundation, waterlogging 1. Introduction 1.1. Challenges Associated With Increased Precipitation in Midwestern Agroecosystems In the United States, the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events have increased in recent decades and are projected to continue rising (Dai et al. 2016 ; Prein and Mearns 2021 ). The Midwest, in particular, has become wetter since the 1950s, with both spring precipitation and precipitation intensity projected to continue increasing throughout the 21st century (Ford et al. 2021 ; Grady et al. 2021 ). As a result, this trend may lead to a higher incidence of soil inundation (the covering of soil surfaces with water from heavy rainfall, flooding, or runoff in agricultural fields for over 24 h). The potential implications of this trend in the Midwest are substantial, given the region's significant contribution to U.S. agricultural production. In 2024, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana together accounted for 51% of U.S. maize ( Zea mays L.) and 46% of U.S. soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA‐NASS) ( 2025 ), and U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA‐FAS) ( 2024 ). In that year, total U.S. maize and soybean production represented 31% and 28% of global maize and soybean production, respectively, according to USDA‐FAS data (2024). Li et al. ( 2019 ) demonstrated that excessive rainfall events in the U.S. can reduce maize yield by an average of 17% ( ± 3%), with losses reaching up to 34% in the northern Midwest. Furthermore, maize is a major feedstock for ethanol production in the U.S. accounting for over 40% of maize use in recent years (Ates 2024 ), further highlighting how inundation events could threaten both food and energy security. Inundation events also impose significant financial costs. After adjusting for inflation, the United States experienced an average of 23 weather and climate‐related disaster events per year, each resulting in losses of $1 billion or more over the past 5 years from 2020 to 2024, compared to a lower historical average of 9 events annually from 1980 to 2024 (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) 2025 ). Farmers were estimated to have lost $6.7 billion due to excessive precipitation, flooding, and hurricanes in 2024, with $2 billion in maize losses accounting for the largest share, followed by $1.5 billion in soybean losses, much of which was driven by flooding across the upper Midwest (Munch 2025 ). Unlike farmers, who can mitigate losses through government programs such as crop insurance and disaster assistance, agricultural input suppliers can face unrecoverable losses. For example, the wet spring of 2019 across the Midwest and parts of the South led to prevented planting, directly costing agricultural input suppliers an estimated $2.9 billion in forgone sales and overall contributing to an estimated loss of $4.5 billion in regional economic activity (English et al. 2021 ). This conservative estimate excludes infrastructure, livestock, horticulture, and timber losses related to the causes of crop loss. From a farm management perspective, inundation presents a host of challenges. In the early growing season, intense precipitation and flooding can increase soil erosion and runoff, leading to the leaching of nutrients and pesticides into both ground and surface waters (Hatfield et al. 2011 ). The depletion of nutrients by erosion stunts plant growth and reduces overall soil productivity (Lal 1990 ; Pimentel 2006 ; Pimentel et al. 1995 ). Additionally, inundation and excess soil moisture can reduce field accessibility for heavy equipment, thereby delaying planting and agrochemical applications needed to prevent pest and disease infestations (Kaur et al. 2020a ; Rosenzweig et al. 2002 ; Urban et al. 2015 ). For example, in Champaign County, Illinois, inundations in maize‐soybean fields were found to last 2.4 ± 1.7 days on average in the early spring (Paul et al. 2020 ). During the 2019 Midwest floods, Shirzaei et al. ( 2021 ) found a statistically significant association between flooded Midwestern counties and counties that experienced crop growth progression delays during the spring of 2019. Delayed planting can also shorten the growing season for maize and increase the likelihood of damage from exposure to cold temperatures later in the season (Nielsen et al. 2002 ). Excess soil moisture has also been found to provide a favorable environment for soil‐borne pathogens, such as Phytophthora , Pythium , and Fusarium , and to increase the risk of plant disease and mortality (Lal 1990 ; Pimentel 2006 ; Pimentel et al. 1995 ). The combination of nutrient loss, shorter growing seasons, altered plant development, and increased susceptibility to disease resulting from more frequent and intense rainfall, along with inundation, can negatively impact crop yield (Kaur et al. 2020a ). Beyond direct financial losses and operational disruptions, there are environmental and ecological costs associated with frequent and intense precipitation events. Soil inundation erodes topsoil, which decreases structural integrity, soil depth, and aggregate stability and increases soil crust formation (Garbrecht et al. 2015 ). The resultant losses of N and P from erosion ultimately lead to higher rates of water body eutrophication, and pesticide pollution threatens wildlife and communities that rely on nearby water resources (Padhiary and Kumar 2024 ). Combined, these environmental and ecological factors could exacerbate runoff and lead to a loss of ecosystem diversity if left unchecked (Luna Juncal et al. 2023 ). Lastly, erosion reduces topsoil capacity as a carbon (C) reservoir, and losses of C and nitrogen (N) from inundation‐induced erosion are often coupled with gaseous C and N losses through increased CH 4 and N 2 O production under anoxic conditions (Kaur et al. 2020b ). Carbon loss as CO 2 following inundation as soils aerate, or as CH 4 is consumed via methanotrophy, may also represent a significant short‐term effect at the field level. The cumulative release of CH 4 and N 2 O, which have 80 and 300 times the warming potential of CO 2 , respectively, and the release of CO 2 following inundation could have significant warming potential. This warming effect could be exacerbated in fields where fertility management incorporates compost and manure, in which the microbiome may be rich in species capable of anaerobic metabolism (Aguilar‐Paredes et al. 2023 ; Dalby et al. 2021 ). Therefore, adaptation of agroecosystems by producers will be crucial in mitigating the effects of inundation. 1.2. Current Best Management Practices for Mitigating the Effects of Soil Inundation Tile drains, altered planting schedules, cover crops (e.g., clover ( Trifolium spp.) and cereal rye ( Secale cereale L.)), and conservation tillage (strip till and no till) have been most frequently recommended as best practices to mitigate the effects of inundation on agroecosystems (Kaur et al. 2020a ). While tile drains improve soil drainage and aeration, there are environmental costs associated with tile drain installation (Randall and Iragavarapu 1995 ). Adjusting planting, fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide schedules may also be difficult, given the variability of weather and climate trends. Additionally, schedule adjustments can shorten the growing season. Up to 50% of maize in the U.S. was planted late in wetter years from 1980 to 2023, resulting in decreased crop yields (Irwin 2024 ). Conservation tillage and cover crops may be a promising compromise as both practices retain nutrients, prevent erosion, and improve soil structure, though at the cost of crop yields (Deines et al. 2023 ; Kaur et al. 2020a ; Qin et al. 2021 ). Nevertheless, these conservation agricultural practices are currently adopted, and therefore, assessing the effectiveness and resilience of these practices in highly productive maize states like Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa is essential (USDA‐NASS 2022 ). Few studies have investigated how these practices withstand the increased frequency and intensity of rain events in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa (Table 1 ). Herein we propose: Key guiding research questions for hypothesis development, three types of field‐based experimentation needed to answer these questions, and challenges associated with implementing these experiments. Additional land management practices are needed to expand the current best practices, reduce reliance on tile drains, and increase field working days. TABLE 1. Studies on corn, soy, or wheat that have observed or investigated the effects of inundation on crop yield, soil nitrogen, nutrient leaching, ecosystem fluxes, and/or field working days have incorporated cover crops and/or conservation or no‐till practices in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. Study Best Management Practice Type of Study Measures Illinois Koirala et al. ( 2023 ) Cover crops Experimental field Crop yield Adeyemi et al. ( 2020 ) Cover crops Experimental Field Soil N Indiana Rui et al. ( 2024 ) Cover crops, no till Experimental field Crop yield Trentman et al. ( 2020 ) Cover crops, no till On‐farm Nutrient leaching Iowa Hall et al. ( 2023 ) Cover crops Experimental field Nutrient leaching Antolini et al. ( 2020 ) Cover crops, conservation till Model Nutrient leaching Basche et al. ( 2016 ) Cover crops Review N/A Midwest Won et al. ( 2024 ) Cover crops Historical data Flux, field‐working days Morton et al. ( 2015 ) Cover crops, no till Survey N/A Open in a new tab We aim to encourage interdisciplinary studies that combine qualitative and quantitative methods to determine the resilience of current best management practices to soil inundation and to test new practices and mitigation tools. 2. Key Research Questions, Experimental Needs, and Potential Outcomes 2.1. Guiding Research Questions Research questions and experimental design should consider the short‐ and long‐term effects of springtime field inundation on agroecosystems to determine the mitigative capacity of cover crops and conservation tillage. We propose the following four questions: In comparison to conventional management, following field inundation, do cover crops and conservation tillage: Reduce drainage duration and wait times in field access? Increase grain yields and reduce physical plant damage and disease incidence? Reduce nutrient and soil losses via GhG emissions, erosion, and runoff? As we approach the mid‐century and field inundation events intensify, will cover crop and conservation tillage agroecosystems maintain their mitigative capacity? Are there additional mitigation practices that can improve soil structure and water infiltration, either alone or in combination with cover crops and/or conservation tillage? What tradeoffs, if any, are associated with the implementation of mitigation practices? For example, conservation tillage may stabilize more organic matter over time by reducing topsoil erosion at some sites but may also lead to decreased crop yields (Pittelkow et al. 2015 ). To explore these research questions, experiments will need to cover different time scales and Midwestern soil types to gain a more holistic picture of the effectiveness of these land‐management practices as the climate changes. 2.2. Experiments Needed to Address Research Questions To address the added complexity of time and scale, we propose three experiment types: On‐farm rapid response measurements, on‐farm long‐term monitoring, and experiments with controlled inundation at research plots or field mesocosms. 2.2.1. On‐Farm Rapid Response Measurements Following Field Inundation Events We define on‐farm rapid response measurements as those taken from farmer‐operated fields immediately after an inundation event or when the field is accessible and safe to enter. Rapid response experiments capture phenomena immediately after an inundation event, providing an opportunity to measure multiple field sites across different geographical zones from which to collect data. Rapid‐response experiments can inform field accessibility by surveying for field drainage time, the number of days to field accessibility, and by identifying depressional zones within the field that take longer to drain. Surveys can also help identify physical crop damage, such as lodging, water‐ or pathogen‐induced rot, failure to emerge, and seed loss, and how these factors impact plant growth and development. Point measures of C and N emissions, tile drain effluent, and watershed or retention pond analysis (N, P, soil C), following an inundation event, would provide more accurate measures of nutrient loss, as well as how these losses are affected by changes in elevation within the field. 2.2.2. On‐Farm Long‐Term Monitoring Long‐term monitoring establishes field sites that have been well‐characterized, from bedrock to the plant canopy, which can serve as a reference point for rapid‐response field sites. These field sites are characterized by the continuous assessment of C and N emissions, plant growth and development, nutrient flux, and drainage dynamics in farmer‐owned and operated fields. Long‐term evaluation tools such as Eddy Covariance towers and tile drainage monitoring can be integrated into field sites to monitor GHG emissions and nutrient flows. At the same time, soil moisture sensors and satellite remote sensing can measure the extent of field inundation. Together, these tools can provide insight into the spatiotemporal trends in whole‐ecosystem responses to inundation. A well‐documented example of this approach is the “common experiment” utilized by the Long‐Term Agroecosystem Research Network (LTAR), which incorporates similar measurements and methods previously described herein (Liebig et al. 2024 ). While our framework focuses on the impact of springtime inundation events, long‐term experiments also provide an opportunity to quantify the cumulative impact of particularly wet growing seasons on biomass yields, soil health, C storage, fertilizer and herbicide application schedules, and field‐working days. 2.2.3. Experimental Measurements Under Controlled Inundation at Research Plots or Mesocosms Controlled inundation experiments enable long‐term monitoring and point measurements of ecosystem responses to field inundation. These experiments may utilize drip irrigation to saturate soils, allowing for the testing of different inundation regimes that vary in frequency and duration of inundation (Ngumbi et al. 2023 ). For example, a 1‐ha plot can accommodate up to four blocks with three different inundation regimes, and each of these blocks may contain up to eight subplots for testing fertilization regimes, soil amendments, or other management strategies (Ngumbi et al. 2023 ). This approach enables the uninterrupted testing of various tillage practices, fertilization regimes, and cover‐cropping systems. Additionally, simulation experiments could easily incorporate new and innovative mitigation practices that have yet to be adopted or practices with low adoption rates. These include, but are not limited to, biologicals, planting perennials, and precision agriculture. 2.3. Research Challenges Implementing the recommended experiments outlined herein will pose challenges for researchers and communities. A significant challenge for on‐farm experiments is securing buy‐in from farmers, industries, and communities. Overcoming this barrier requires researchers to establish or build relationships with stakeholders, clearly communicate the benefits, incentivize participation, and/or form collaborative partnerships with stakeholders where they directly contribute to all aspects of the research process. An additional challenge with on‐farm experimentation is the logistics associated with organizing labor, accessing fields, moving equipment and instruments, and establishing instrument infrastructure that will not impede farm operations, particularly relevant to long‐term monitoring. While research farm experiments overcome the barriers of on‐farm experiments, these experiments may be too complex to scale up, are conducted under controlled conditions, and are intensely managed. Additionally, the scope and effectiveness of these research strategies depend on the realized changes in precipitation intensity and field inundation frequency, severity, and duration. Model projections of future precipitation extremes are fraught with uncertainty from (1) complex, non‐linear responses of dynamics and thermodynamics to background, GHG‐forced warming, (2) the magnitude and velocity of GHG radiative forcing driving warming over the 21st century, and (3) inherent and often irreducible atmospheric variability at fine spatial and temporal scales that are relevant to the precipitation events that drive inundation (Grady et al. 2021 ; Lafferty and Sriver 2023 ; Mercurio and Patricola 2025 ). It is therefore increasingly critical that climate projections and assessments of potential future climate change are produced within a decision‐oriented framework that prioritizes context specificity and adaptability to different knowledge structures (e.g., Ford et al. 2021 ). In the case of agricultural field inundation, understanding the anatomy of the storms that cause inundation, their seasonality, atmospheric dynamics and thermodynamics, and relevant spatial and temporal scales can help produce more valuable and usable precipitation projections for agricultural research. Collaboration between the climate and agronomy communities is crucial for informed decision‐making and improved information. Overall, our experimental framework aims to inform the resilience of recommended best management practices and to expand current recommendations to include practices that show promise for mitigating field inundation (Figure 1 ). Some of these practices are discussed in the next section. FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Experimental framework for testing the resilience of best management practices to intensifying agricultural field inundation. 3. Expanding Current Best Management Practices 3.1. Agricultural Biologicals The adoption of agricultural biologicals in the U.S. is increasing due to the potential to manage pests, maintain or increase C storage, and enhance soil health, with a 5% increase in adoption rates between 2022 and 2024 among surveyed farmers (McKinsey and Company 2024 ). Agricultural biological products fall into two categories: biopesticides, which are defined as inoculants of beneficial microbes for enhanced disease or pest resistance in crops, and biostimulants, which are substances or microorganisms (e.g., humic acids, marine extracts, N‐fixing or phosphorus‐solubilizing inoculants) that may improve nutrient availability, upregulate beneficial plant‐microbe interactions, or mitigate abiotic stress (Sible et al. 2025 ). These products are commercially available, and the development of new biostimulants and biopesticides is increasing (Critchley et al. 2021 ; Khalid et al. 2024 ). As new products are added to the market, it will be essential to determine the mitigation potential of these products and how their efficacy in the field is affected by inundation events. Biopesticide application to inundation‐prone fields may help protect against plant pathogens that thrive in waterlogged conditions, such as Fusarium , Rhizoctonia , and Pythium . Bacillus subtilis strains have demonstrated antifungal activity against all three fungi in maize, soybean, and wheat and are effective in seeds, seedlings, and established plants (Lahlali et al. 2022 ). Additionally, the protective effect of the secretion of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) for biofilm formation may also aid in forming soil aggregates and enhance aggregate stability (Ali et al. 2024 ; Lahlali et al. 2022 ). While biopesticide use and studies are increasing, the effects of EPS secretion by biopesticide agents are understudied and represent a significant knowledge gap in soil inundation research. While biostimulants and biopesticides may be solutions to bolster plant response and resilience, carbon‐based amendments at greater use rates (e.g., kg ha −1 with amendments vs. g ha −1 with biostimulants) may mitigate the negative impacts of soil inundation by improving nutrient retention, preventing runoff, and enhancing soil structure. An example of a carbon‐based amendment is biochar (BC), which has been shown to bind organic compounds, enhance pore water space, and stimulate soil aggregate formation (Awad et al. 2013 ; Burrell et al. 2016 ). Biochar is also C‐rich and difficult to degrade, making it a relatively stable form of C with decadal to centennial mean residence times in soil depending on the initial feedstock and production (Gibson et al. 2018 ; J. Wang et al. 2016 ). However, a significant challenge with BC addition is sustainably producing environmentally safe chars with low benzene polycarboxylic acid content (BPCAs) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Chang et al. 2018 ; C. Wang et al. 2017 ). A possible solution is to produce BC at low temperatures via pyrolysis, not combustion, using organic yard waste, native grasses, or organic field residue as feedstock, and applying biochar in inundation‐prone field areas using precision agriculture. 3.2. Precision Agriculture Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are relatively flat. As a result, the degree of inundation is dictated by variations in elevation of 1 cm to 1 m (Moser et al. 2007 ). These slight variations, or microtopography, impact not only the cropland hydrology but also soil physicochemical properties due to erosion and deposition, light intensity and penetration, and soil temperature (Moser et al. 2007 ). These impacts are directly connected to plant growth, crop yields, susceptibility to disease, microbial community dynamics, and GHG emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the interaction between microtopography and field inundation when implementing best management practices. Precision agriculture allows for targeted application of soil amendments, planting schedules, and agricultural biologicals using GPS, remote sensing, sensors, or imaging technologies based on spatial and temporal variability within a landscape due to weather, land management practices, and microtopography (Gebbers and Adamchuk 2010 ). This approach also reduces loading rates, mitigates environmental impacts, and conserves resources. 3.3. Planting Perennials Planting crops adapted for waterlogged conditions is another promising strategy to mitigate the effects of field inundation. Perennial crop species, like miscanthus, perennial sorghum, and switchgrass, have deep root systems that allow water absorption under drought or flooding conditions, prevent plants from washing away, improve soil stability, and reduce erosion (Jager et al. 2020 ). Perennials also have higher below‐ground energy reserves than annual plants, allowing for the allocation of resources for regeneration in the event of significant damage to the plant (DeHaan et al. 2005 ). Additionally, perennials can ferment sugars under low oxygen conditions and form aerenchymatous (air‐filled) tissues, facilitating oxygen transport (Blom et al. 1990 ; Visser et al. 2003 ). Combined with a longer growing season, higher biomass yields, and no need to replant, these characteristics demonstrate that perennials are well‐adapted for inundated soil. Miscanthus, perennial sorghum, and switchgrass are also being developed for food, fiber, and biofuels and can be integrated into the landscape using precision agriculture by planting in inundation‐prone areas of agricultural fields (Edmonds et al. 2021 ; Jager et al. 2020 ). Additionally, waste from these crops can be recycled into agricultural amendment products, such as biochar, providing an additional avenue for profit and contributing to local and circular economies. 3.4. Drainage Management Intensifying sustainable artificial drainage has been suggested as a tool to reduce agricultural field flooding, which may also cut N 2 O emissions and enhance nitrogen use efficiency by lowering optimal fertilizer rates (Castellano et al. 2019 ). Controlled drainage involves adjusting the elevation of drainage outlets to modify drainage volume (Youssef et al. 2023 ). Although this approach can increase nutrient runoff into watersheds, combining controlled drainage with water recirculation from a drainage ditch to the field, or using saturated buffers, which reroute drainage water to the soil of a vegetated buffer where plants can take up nitrates before reaching the watershed, can help mitigate potential nutrient losses (Chandrasoma et al. 2022 , 2019 ). Few full‐scale studies have evaluated the effectiveness of drainage water recycling and saturated buffers in mitigating the negative impacts of inundation (Mitchell et al. 2023 ). The framework presented here offers a pathway for assessing the mitigation potential of these practices. 4. Conclusion Field inundation events are expected to continue in the Midwestern United States, with the potential to cause costly losses to agriculture in Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. To reduce losses, improve resilience to soil inundation, and ensure global food and energy security, evaluating the resilience of established current best management practices is necessary. While challenges exist in monitoring changes in field access, plant growth and development, soil‐borne diseases, erosion, and runoff, as well as nutrient cycling in inundation‐prone fields at different times and scales, our experimental framework provides a way to assess agroecosystem resilience. Although our framework primarily focuses on the effects of springtime inundation events in the Midwest, we acknowledge that it may also apply throughout a growing season and could be adapted to other extreme weather events that affect global cropping systems, such as wind, dust storms, or drought. Lastly, we advocate for testing emerging management practices, as multiple approaches may be necessary to adapt agricultural landscapes for more frequent and intensifying inundation events. Author Contributions Bin Peng: investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Doug Gucker: conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Connor Sible: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, investigation. Trent Ford: investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Gerald Mashange: writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, investigation. Funding This work was supported by the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgements The authors thank Megan R. Sapp‐Nelson from the Grainger Engineering Library Center at the University of Illinois and Kevin Grady from the United States Air Force 14th Weather Squadron for their technical assistance and information support. Data Availability Statement Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. References Adeyemi, O. , Keshavarz‐Afshar R., Jahanzad E., Battaglia M. L., Luo Y., and Sadeghpour A.. 2020. “Effect of Wheat Cover Crop and Split Nitrogen Application on Corn Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency.” Agronomy‐Basel 10, no. 8: 1081. 10.3390/agronomy10081081. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Aguilar‐Paredes, A. , Valdés G., Araneda N., Valdebenito E., Hansen F., and Nuti M.. 2023. “Microbial Community in the Composting Process and Its Positive Impact on the Soil Biota in Sustainable Agriculture.” Agronomy 13, no. 2: 2. 10.3390/agronomy13020542. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ali, N. , Abbas S. A. A. A., Sharif L., et al. 2024. “Chapter 13—Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substance and Impacts on Soil Aggregation.” In Bacterial Secondary Metabolites, edited by Abd‐Elsalam K. A. and Mohamed H. I., 221–237. Elsevier. 10.1016/B978-0-323-95251-4.00021-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Antolini, F. , Tate E., Dalzell B., Young N., Johnson K., and Hawthorne P. L.. 2020. “Flood Risk Reduction From Agricultural Best Management Practices.” In Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 56, 161–179. WILEY. 10.1111/1752-1688.12812. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ates, A. M.
2024. “ Corn‐based ethanol production in the United States has plateaued in recent years | Economic Research Service .” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/chart‐gallery/chart‐detail?chartId=58346 . Awad, Y. M. , Blagodatskaya E., Ok Y. S., and Kuzyakov Y.. 2013. “Effects of Polyacrylamide, Biopolymer and Biochar on the Decomposition of 14C‐Labelled Maize Residues and on Their Stabilization in Soil Aggregates.” European Journal of Soil Science 64, no. 4: 488–499. 10.1111/ejss.12034. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Basche, A. , Kaspar T., Archontoulis S., et al. 2016. “Soil Water Improvements With the Long‐Term Use of a Winter Rye Cover Crop.” Agricultural Water Management 172: 40–50. (WOS:000377740100005). 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Blom, C. W. P. M. , Bögemann G. M., Laan P., van der Sman A. J. M., van de Steeg H. M., and Voesenek L. A. C. J.. 1990. “Adaptations to Flooding in Plants From River Areas.” Aquatic Botany, Adaptation of Plants to Flooding 38, no. 1: 29–47. 10.1016/0304-3770(90)90097-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Burrell, L. D. , Zehetner F., Rampazzo N., Wimmer B., and Soja G.. 2016. “Long‐Term Effects of Biochar on Soil Physical Properties.” Geoderma 282: 96–102. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.019. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Castellano, M. J. , Archontoulis S. V., Helmers M. J., Poffenbarger H. J., and Six J.. 2019. “Sustainable Intensification of Agricultural Drainage.” Nature Sustainability 2, no. 10: 914–921. 10.1038/s41893-019-0393-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Chandrasoma, J. , Christianson R., Cooke R. A., Davidson P. C., Lee D., and Christianson L.. 2022. “Saturated Buffer Design Flow and Performance in Illinois.” Journal of Environmental Quality 51, no. 3: 389–398. 10.1002/jeq2.20344. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Chandrasoma, J. M. , Christianson R. D., and Christianson L. E.. 2019. “Saturated Buffers: What Is Their Potential Impact Across the US Midwest?” Agricultural and Environmental Letters 4, no. 1: 180059. 10.2134/ael2018.11.0059. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Chang, Z. , Tian L., Wu M., Dong X., Peng J., and Pan B.. 2018. “Molecular Markers of Benzene Polycarboxylic Acids in Describing Biochar Physiochemical Properties and Sorption Characteristics.” Environmental Pollution 237: 541–548. 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.02.071. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Critchley, A. T. , Critchley J. S. C., Norrie J., Gupta S., and van Staden J.. 2021. “Chapter 13 ‐ Perspectives on the Global Biostimulant Market: Applications, Volumes, and Values, 2016 Data and Projections to 2022.” In Biostimulants for Crops From Seed Germination to Plant Development, edited by Gupta S. and van Staden J., 289–296. Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-823048-0.00012-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Dai, S. , Shulski M. D., Hubbard K. G., and Takle E. S.. 2016. “A Spatiotemporal Analysis of Midwest US Temperature and Precipitation Trends During the Growing Season From 1980 to 2013.” International Journal of Climatology 36, no. 1: 517–525. 10.1002/joc.4354. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Dalby, F. R. , Hafner S. D., Petersen S. O., et al. 2021. “Understanding Methane Emission From Stored Animal Manure: A Review to Guide Model Development.” Journal of Environmental Quality 50, no. 4: 817–835. 10.1002/jeq2.20252. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] DeHaan, L. R. , Van Tassel D. L., and Cox T. S.. 2005. “Perennial Grain Crops: A Synthesis of Ecology and Plant Breeding.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20, no. 1: 5–14. 10.1079/RAF200496. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Deines, J. M. , Guan K., Lopez B., et al. 2023. “Recent Cover Crop Adoption Is Associated With Small Maize and Soybean Yield Losses in the United States.” Global Change Biology 29, no. 3: 794–807. 10.1111/gcb.16489. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Edmonds, P. , Franz K., Heaton E., Kaleita A., Soupir M., and VanLoocke A.. 2021. “Planting Miscanthus Instead of Row Crops May Increase the Productivity and Economic Performance of Farmed Potholes.” Global Change Biology. Bioenergy 13, no. 9: 1481–1497. (WOS:000673406500001). 10.1111/gcbb.12870. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] English, B. C. , Smith S. A., Menard R. J., Hughes D. W., and Gunderson M.. 2021. “Estimated Economic Impacts of the 2019 Midwest Floods.” Economics of Disasters and Climate Change 5, no. 3: 431–448. 10.1007/s41885-021-00095-2. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ford, T. W. , Chen L., and Schoof J. T.. 2021. “Variability and Transitions in Precipitation Extremes in the Midwest United States.” Journal of Hydrometeorology 22, no. 3: 533–545. 10.1175/JHM-D-20-0216.1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Garbrecht, J. D. , Nearing M. A., Steiner J. L., Zhang X. J., and Nichols M. H.. 2015. “Can Conservation Trump Impacts of Climate Change on Soil Erosion? An Assessment From Winter Wheat Cropland in the Southern Great Plains of the United States.” Weather and Climate Extremes, USDA Research and Programs on Extreme Events 10: 32–39. 10.1016/j.wace.2015.06.002. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gebbers, R. , and Adamchuk V. I.. 2010. “Precision Agriculture and Food Security.” Science 327, no. 5967: 828–831. 10.1126/science.1183899. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gibson, C. D. , Hatton P.‐J., Bird J. A., et al. 2018. “Interacting Controls of Pyrolysis Temperature and Plant Taxa on the Degradability of PyOM in Fire‐Prone Northern Temperate Forest Soil.” Soil Systems 2, no. 3: 3. 10.3390/soilsystems2030048. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Grady, K. A. , Chen L., and Ford T. W.. 2021. “Projected Changes to Spring and Summer Precipitation in the Midwestern United States.” Frontiers in Water 3: 780333. 10.3389/frwa.2021.780333. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hall, S. J. , Tenesaca C. G., Lawrence N. C., et al. 2023. “Poorly Drained Depressions Can Be Hotspots of Nutrient Leaching From Agricultural Soils.” Journal of Environmental Quality 52, no. 3: 678–690. 10.1002/jeq2.20461. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hatfield, J. L. , Boote K. J., Kimball B. A., et al. 2011. “Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production.” Agronomy Journal 103, no. 2: 351–370. 10.2134/agronj2010.0303. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Irwin, S.
2024. “Further Evidence on the Impact of Late Planting on the U.S. Average Corn Yield.” Farmdoc Daily , 14(81). https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/04/further‐evidence‐on‐the‐impact‐of‐late‐planting‐on‐the‐us‐average‐corn‐yield.html . Jager, H. I. , Parish E. S., Langholtz M. H., and King A. W.. 2020. “Perennials in Flood‐Prone Areas of Agricultural Landscapes: A Climate Adaptation Strategy.” Bioscience 70, no. 4: 278–280. 10.1093/biosci/biaa006. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kaur, G. , Singh G., Motavalli P. P., Nelson K. A., Orlowski J. M., and Golden B. R.. 2020a. “Impacts and Management Strategies for Crop Production in Waterlogged or Flooded Soils: A Review.” Agronomy Journal 112, no. 3: 1475–1501. 10.1002/agj2.20093. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kaur, G. , Singh G., Motavalli P. P., Nelson K. A., Orlowski J. M., and Golden B. R.. 2020b. “Management Practices to Reduce Crop Production and Nitrogen Losses From Waterlogging.” Crops and Soils 53, no. 4: 33–45. 10.1002/crso.20053. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Khalid, F. , Rasheed Y., Asif K., et al. 2024. “Plant Biostimulants: Mechanisms and Applications for Enhancing Plant Resilience to Abiotic Stresses.” Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 24, no. 4: 6641–6690. 10.1007/s42729-024-01996-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Koirala, N. , Barker D. J., Gesch R. W., et al. 2023. “Seed Treatment Affected Establishment and Yield in Two Pennycress Lines.” In Frontiers in Agronomy, vol. 5. FRONTIERS MEDIA SA. 10.3389/fagro.2023.1205259. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Lafferty, D. C. , and Sriver R. L.. 2023. “Downscaling and Bias‐Correction Contribute Considerable Uncertainty to Local Climate Projections in CMIP6.” npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 6, no. 1: 158. 10.1038/s41612-023-00486-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Lahlali, R. , Ezrari S., Radouane N., et al. 2022. “Biological Control of Plant Pathogens: A Global Perspective.” Microorganisms 10, no. 3: 3. 10.3390/microorganisms10030596. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lal, R.
1990. “Soil Erosion and Land Degradation: The Global Risks.” In Advances in Soil Science: Soil Degradation Volume 11, edited by Lal R. and Stewart B. A., 129–172. Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4612-3322-0_4. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Li, Y. , Guan K., Schnitkey G. D., DeLucia E., and Peng B.. 2019. “Excessive Rainfall Leads to Maize Yield Loss of a Comparable Magnitude to Extreme Drought in the United States.” Global Change Biology 25, no. 7: 2325–2337. 10.1111/gcb.14628. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Liebig, M. A. , Abendroth L. J., Robertson G. P., et al. 2024. “The LTAR Common Experiment: Facilitating Improved Agricultural Sustainability Through Coordinated Cross‐Site Research.” Journal of Environmental Quality 53, no. 6: 787–801. 10.1002/jeq2.20636. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Luna Juncal, M. J. , Masino P., Bertone E., and Stewart R. A.. 2023. “Towards Nutrient Neutrality: A Review of Agricultural Runoff Mitigation Strategies and the Development of a Decision‐Making Framework.” Science of the Total Environment 874: 162408. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162408. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] McKinsey and Company . 2024. “Voice of the global farmer 2024: Farmer survey | McKinsey.” https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our‐insights/global‐farmer‐insights‐2024#/ . Mercurio, T. J. , and Patricola C. M.. 2025. “Future Changes in Midwest Extreme Precipitation Depend on Storm Type.” Geophysical Research Letters 52, no. 5: e2024GL113126. 10.1029/2024GL113126. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Mitchell, M. E. , Newcomer‐Johnson T., Christensen J., et al. 2023. “A Review of Ecosystem Services From Edge‐Of‐Field Practices in Tile‐Drained Agricultural Systems in the United States Corn Belt Region.” Journal of Environmental Management 348: 119220. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119220. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Morton, L. , Hobbs J., Arbuckle J., and Loy A.. 2015. “Upper Midwest Climate Variations: Farmer Responses to Excess Water Risks.” Journal of Environmental Quality 44, no. 3: 810–822. (WOS:000353637200008). 10.2134/jeq2014.08.0352. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Moser, K. , Ahn C., and Noe G.. 2007. “Characterization of Microtopography and Its Influence on Vegetation Patterns in Created Wetlands.” Wetlands 27, no. 4: 1081–1097. 10.1672/0277-5212(2007)27[1081:COMAII]2.0.CO;2. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Munch, D.
2025. Hurricanes Heat and Hardship: Counting 2024's Crop Losses. https://www.fb.org/market‐intel/hurricanes‐heat‐and‐hardship‐counting‐2024s‐crop‐losses . Ngumbi, E. N. , Kent A., Below F. E., and Sible C.. 2023. “Response Of The Corn Microbiome And Defense‐Related Secondary Metabolites To Flooding Stress And Management Interventions—UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.” https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1030284‐response‐of‐the‐corn‐microbiome‐and‐defense‐related‐secondary‐metabolites‐to‐flooding‐stress‐and‐management‐interventions.html . Nielsen, R. L. , Thomison P. R., Brown G. A., Halter A. L., Wells J., and Wuethrich K. L.. 2002. “Delayed Planting Effects on Flowering and Grain Maturation of Dent Corn.” Agronomy Journal 94, no. 3: 549–558. 10.2134/agronj2002.5490. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) . 2025. U.S. Billion‐dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information . https://doi/10.25921/STKW‐7W73 . Padhiary, M. , and Kumar R.. 2024. “Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Agriculture, Industrial Operations, and Mining on Agro‐Ecosystems.” In Smart Internet of Things for Environment and Healthcare, edited by Azrour M., Mabrouki J., Alabdulatif A., Guezzaz A., and Amounas F., 107–126. Springer Nature. 10.1007/978-3-031-70102-3_8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Paul, R. , Cai Y., Peng B., Yang W., Guan K., and DeLucia E.. 2020. “Spatiotemporal Derivation of Intermittent Ponding in a Maize‐Soybean Landscape From Planet Labs CubeSat Images.” Remote Sensing 12, no. 12: 1942. 10.3390/rs12121942. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pimentel, D.
2006. “Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 8, no. 1: 119–137. 10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pimentel, D. , Harvey C., Resosudarmo P., et al. 1995. “Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits.” Science 267, no. 5201: 1117–1123. 10.1126/science.267.5201.1117. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pittelkow, C. M. , Linquist B. A., Lundy M. E., et al. 2015. “When Does No‐Till Yield More? A Global Meta‐Analysis.” Field Crops Research 183: 156–168. 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Prein, A. F. , and Mearns L. O.. 2021. “U.S. Extreme Precipitation Weather Types Increased in Frequency During the 20th Century.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 126, no. 7: e2020JD034287. 10.1029/2020JD034287. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Qin, Z. , Guan K., Zhou W., et al. 2021. “Assessing the Impacts of Cover Crops on Maize and Soybean Yield in the U.S. Midwestern Agroecosystems.” Field Crops Research 273: 108264. 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108264. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Randall, G. W. , and Iragavarapu T. K.. 1995. “Impact of Long‐Term Tillage Systems for Continuous Corn on Nitrate Leaching to Tile Drainage.” Journal of Environmental Quality 24, no. 2: 360–366. 10.2134/jeq1995.00472425002400020020x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Rosenzweig, C. , Tubiello F. N., Goldberg R., Mills E., and Bloomfield J.. 2002. “Increased Crop Damage in the US From Excess Precipitation Under Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 12, no. 3: 197–202. 10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00008-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Rui, Y. , Goller B., and Kladivko E. J.. 2024. “Long‐Term Crop Yield Benefits of Subsurface Drainage on Poorly Drained Soils.” Agronomy Journal 116, no. 5: 2151–2162. 10.1002/agj2.21621. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Shirzaei, M. , Khoshmanesh M., Ojha C., et al. 2021. “Persistent Impact of Spring Floods on Crop Loss in U.S. Midwest.” Weather and Climate Extremes 34. (WOS:000713194800002): 100392. 10.1016/j.wace.2021.100392. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Sible, C. N. , Seebauer J. R., and Below F. E.. 2025. “Biostimulant or Biological? The Complexity of Defining, Categorizing, and Regulating Microbial Inoculants.” Agricultural and Environmental Letters 10, no. 2: e70027. 10.1002/ael2.70027. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Trentman, M. T. , Tank J. L., Royer T. V., Speir S. L., Mahl U. H., and Sethna L. R.. 2020. “Cover Crops and Precipitation Influence Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Losses via Tile Drain Discharge in an Agricultural Watershed.” Hydrological Processes 34, no. 23: 4446–4458. 10.1002/hyp.13870. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Urban, D. W. , Roberts M. J., Schlenker W., and Lobell D. B.. 2015. “The Effects of Extremely Wet Planting Conditions on Maize and Soybean Yields.” Climatic Change 130, no. 2: 247–260. 10.1007/s10584-015-1362-x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service . 2024. “ Global Production.” https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/2222000 . U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service . 2025. Crop Production 2024 Summary (Nos. 1057–7823). United States Department of Agriculture. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda‐esmis/files/k3569432s/ns065v292/tm70ph00b/cropan24.pdf . USDA‐NASS . 2022. Conservation Practice Adoption Motivations, 2021 (Nos. 2022–8; NASS Highlights, 1–2). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2022/CPAMS.pdf . Visser, E. J. W. , Voesenek L. A. C. J., Vartapetian B. B., and Jackson M. B.. 2003. “Flooding and Plant Growth.” Annals of Botany 91, no. 2: 107–109. 10.1093/aob/mcg014. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Wang, C. , Wang Y., and Herath H. M. S. K.. 2017. “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Biochar – Their Formation, Occurrence and Analysis: A Review.” Organic Geochemistry 114: 1–11. 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2017.09.001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Wang, J. , Xiong Z., and Kuzyakov Y.. 2016. “Biochar Stability in Soil: Meta‐Analysis of Decomposition and Priming Effects.” GCB Bioenergy 8, no. 3: 512–523. 10.1111/gcbb.12266. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Won, S. , Rejesus R. M., Goodwin B. K., and Aglasan S.. 2024. “Understanding the Effect of Cover Crop Use on Prevented Planting Losses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 106, no. 2: 659–683. 10.1111/ajae.12396. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Youssef, M. A. , Strock J., Bagheri E., et al. 2023. “Impact of Controlled Drainage on Corn Yield Under Varying Precipitation Patterns: A Synthesis of Studies Across the US Midwest and Southeast.” Agricultural Water Management 275: 107993. 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107993. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Articles from Global Change Biology are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top